Skip to main content

About this Show

Politics Public Policy Today





Richmond, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 43






Us 57, U.s. 42, Boston 37, United States 22, Feinstein 14, Schumer 13, Washington 13, Mexico 12, Rebecca Kaplan 8, Massachusetts 7, China 7, Obama 6, Chechnya 6, Napolitano 6, Japan 6, Bennett 5, Rubio 5, Minnesota 5, Dr. Holtz-eakin 5, Los Angeles 5,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Politics Public Policy Today    News/Business.  

    April 19, 2013
    2:00 - 8:01pm EDT  

that -- i did not taylor that estimate to 2013, 2014, 2015. this bill will take some time to pass and commence. you want to think of that as, what will the next 10 years look like? >> your testimony of since immigration. some are concerned by the cause. not 2007 any more. it is important to consider what has happened since then to get a sense of how the effects may have changed. can you elaborate on that? >> i think the key spending aspects changed. the policy objectors on the discretionary side, there has been expenditure on the systems. not all of this needs to be done.
on the mandatory spending side, the key change has been the pastors of the affordable care act. the drafters of the legislation have taken great bipartisan care to ensure that within the next 10 to 15 years that does not impinge on the cost and legislation. >> thank you very much. of you asboth witnesses. first question to both of you, since we have a generation of very generous immigration i have always argued that we must enhance and expand legal avenues for people who wish to labor and work here. this bill makes many changes will live in those legal programs and increases work permits and green cards. questto bh of ys to either of you have an estimate on how the legal immigration levels will increase if we pass this bill? >> i do not have an estimate
myself. i will say this. i responded to something that said and i respect him on these issues. significant for -- there is a specific problem when it comes to make a reservation. -- to regularize agent read it is not going to help the employment levels currently. all workersake sure are subject the same legal requirements. the problem is when you people, the tiny advantage americans have evaporate. if everyone is subject to the same set of rules then formally illegal immigrants will be on the same playing field. it is not going to advantage lower-skilled workers who are currently here. we have a little participation rate that is at historic low, only 62%.
ut resort to one of mywill previous incarnations. it is palpable the competition that is driven out by illegal immigration. they will tell you we cannot compete. if these individuals are now regularized, one fell swoop the smaller advantage disappears. >> do you have a number for me? >> not a% number. bill looks to be somewhere around 250,000, maybe no. of that depending on some of the expansions will but i would be happy to come back with a more precise estimate what they become comfortable with it.
>> i am going ask you a question that deals with dynamic scoring. i know you believe in it, i believe in it. we also had a vote on the budget bill. senate and the democrats voted against dynamics going. your objection of the economic benefits are based on that scoring. to, to scores include dynamic economic impact for policy changes and with the use dynamic scoring in the case of allow rating on this bill? -- ks of deliberating on this bill. been yelled at many times over that period my point
is simply that when you get a cbo score and know that there are benefits that are being uncounted in the legislation. >> dynamic scoring should be used to major economic benefits of immigration reform. dynamiclso major economic benefits will occur. you two agree with that. i am trying to point out that you cannot have it both ways. maybe this shows it is very positive from the standpoint of the economy, if you use dynamic scoring. if you use statics deploring it is not and cannot so well. -- static scoring it is not going to come out so well. i have a question for the other witness. you said this in your statement tionhis is aasnab.
the obvious question is whether or not there are sufficient jobs for average americans and illegal immigrants. the answer is no. >> as i indicated to us recently. latere have a participation rate we have a supply of low-skilled labor. it appears that what do is leapfrogging those individuals. we have millions upon millions of americans, not just black americans, but millions upon millions who do not have a job right now. i think it is a good idea to inform -- to reform immigration system but regard must be given to the fact that we have an over abundance of people not working today. we are at rates we have not sn in 80, 75 years.
it is astonishing. if we have regularize asian of a greater pool of individuals who can compete on a one by one basis with americans here today those individuals are not g toeing a job. they do not have the resources, skills said, to compete with the same level. >> i would just simply make a statement about e-and verify. -- e-verify. it gives five years to put into effect. it can be done sooner. >> as i tried to do we are going to keep on schedule. now to senator feinstein.
call out take a phone back. i should be back in just a few minutes. >> thank you so much. i am going to use my time to briefly speak about the bill -- the partisan bill that i had something to do with. first of all i want to congratulate senator schumer and others that work on crafting the big bill. i want to point out to everyone -- this is the first time i have had a chance to do this -- agricultural -- a culture in mainly served is undocumented immigrants. people who become very skilled at the works that they do. one does things that happened is .hat agriculture has declined has curtailed activities.
i want to sink -- to thank senator hatch and his son who worked on this along with center rubio, his staff, and in gonzales. and senator bennett, who sat through a great many of these to theseng systems -- great many negotiating sessions. the employers want to wait specificity and it wanted out of a statistical gathering which they believe skewed wages. the farm workers wanted decent wages and also worker protections. i believe we have achieved both. the program has what is called the blue card program. for workers that have been working for a period of time,
will be permitted to continue to work, will pay a fine, would get a blue card. -- in-line >>o a h &a, and an with at-will portable visa program. 300,000 ver 3 years. the jurisdiction is placed under makeepartment of he will his farm service agencies available, which exist in every county of our state and our nation to aid farmers as they do and also farm workers as well.
i believe is a good solution. there are a couple of additions we need to make. strongit is a goo program. i believe it will result in a of eric holderly workers for our farmers. floor andld the recognize senator hatch. >> thank you senator feinstein. the high school immigration is very important to me. i want to support this bill but i can. there are some questions about it. >> in january senators
introduced the immigration act of 2013, commonly referred to as the isquared bill. it has 26 bipartisan co- sponsors. it has been endorsed by countless companies and organizations. i hope you'll take a look at that bill. the act addresses the immediate short-term need to provide employers with greater access to high skilled workers. it also addresses the long-term need to in in america's stem education. this two step approach will enable our country to thrive and help us compete in today's global economy. i took a look at the high school skilledns -- the high provisions to see how they competed. there are some areas i think that need to be changed in these provisions. most people do not realize that this bill requires the government to micromanage.
this bill creates bird some outplacement but not displacement and free record and obligations. unless these provisions inhibit companies from affectively a cop -- from the friendly operating in a global economy, mobility is critical. it may only be raised after satisfying a complex formula. therefore the proposed market adjustment will not effectively respond to real time needs. -- prop education the states should have the capability to set an per se to their individual stamp educationese -- their individual education needs.
throughout the negotiations i cannot tell you how many times i heard complaints about the and we need to craft a new program to meet the demands of the agriculture industry. the existing program was underutilized due to how arduous and to prepare a credit to the agricultural employees -- arduous the agricultural employers find it. well as the provisions currently stand the bill could be rendered and workable for many u.s. employers and these these categories could follow the same fate. you have recently written the immigration reform can have positive effects on economic growth. it possibly raise per capita gross domestic product by
$1,500. it would be felt in decades to come and not necessarily in the immediate term. we can also senior term effects. legal workers pay into the social security trust fund but eventually collect benefits. they also collect disability insurance from a program with a trust fund, which will be exhausted by 2016. have you personally thought about what might be near term or market effects on the social security programs if there were to be a significant increase in legal immigration? >> i have thought about that. i think timing is important. that concernsink of high levels of unemployment -- it does not look to me that this bill would have significant impact for anything under five years, mostly 10.
hope that we are not looking at over 7.5% unemployment five years from now. if you think of this is entering into the economy that is much an inflow ofl see immigrants paying taxes up front that will fund retirees' and will eventually qualify for benefits. they are the issue. that is a question about social security reform. i think we do need is a security reform. >> i thank you for your work. i appreciate both of you being here today. very much senator schumer? >> thank you, senator feinstein. i thank you both of you for your great work on agriculture. i also want to see -- i also want to thank chairman leahy for having this hearing. it has been amazing and those of us in our little group cannot
support him enough -- cannot thank him enough for supporting our bill. 90% ofi get started, what is in his bill is in our bill. overall it is very positive. >> thank you. i would like to really look that over. >> i will. the bill i to would like to ask that all of us do not jump to conclusions regarding the events in boston. we will try to complete those events with this legislation. we are a safer country when law- enforcement knows who is here, has their fingerprints, photos, conduct background checks, and no wonder these to look at needles through haystacks. both the refugee program and asylum program have been significantly strengthened in the past five years, such that we are much more careful about
screening people in determining who should or should not be coming into the country. if there are any changes that our homeland security experts tell us we need to be made -- s, security experts tell us need to be made -- a there were widespread erroneous reports of arrests being made. this emphasizes how important it is to let the facts come out before jumping to any conclusions. mostieve this is the balanced piece of immigration legislation that has been ever produced. the american people and all of our colleagues should read this bill over the next few weeks. they will have ample time to look at every page and every paragraph before we go to markup in the committee. what they will find is a bill the secures our borders, combats the overstay, cracks down on employers that hires unauthorized workers, unleashes the potential of our legal immigration to create robust
growth, to provide a jolt to our ,usiness and leisure industries and deals with the status of undocumented individuals in a tough, fair, and practical way. i believe one of the words that -- signifiescant i this is a balance. i think the american people find it the same. now for some questions. first to reach it i know you will not be deported to 11 million. assuming that can happen, of which you do not assume that most people do, even those who are not happy about illegal immigration, isn't it better to have those who are here illegally able to work legally -- they will then be paid a higher wage and wage rates for everyone else will go up.
in my neighborhood in brooklyn, and i think this is true throughout america, i ride my bicycle throughout brooklyn early in the morning. icy day laborers who are waiting to be picked up. i guarantee you the construction workers are not paying them $2 over minimum wage and hour off for lunch. they give the $20 per day. because these folks are living in the shadows and desperately need money, some of which they want to send home, take it. my question is simple. if we cannot support the 11 million people, isn't it better to have a system that is in our asl where people can work opposed to work here illegally which puts rates lower. think things -- i do not 11 million f i cannot anbu am novor deporting them.
i support immigration. i am fully in favor of immigration. i am here to tell you today that and if you regularized legalize across the board everyone who works are clinton be subject the same standards and everything else -- are going to be subject to the same standards, these problems are still going to exist. you're still going to have a sizable core of individuals who are credited bennett of people recall this. >> is it hard for them to take it that if they are legalized? >> on the margins. i do this kind of work, i see it on a regular basis. and >> people always take a vantage but even you admit it will get better. you just said marginally.
what you think? i will yield my time. >> this strikes me as a question of enforcement. this issue o wer f whetherhe provisions ll be ed etively. thongress has great wers of pursstri to ensure thef the enforcement takes place as written. fnly those on the other side this table can assurance they will. you have the authority. >> thank you. >> thank you, senators. >> thank you, madam chair. it is one thing to read the bill. it is another thing to see it in force. we have lost today that utterly ignore -- that are utterly ignored. i have no confidence in this administration based on what we have seen will ever enforce any law to make a real difference in this situation. that is the way it is and we do have a problem there. we'll have to ask are we going
to be like 1986 all over again when there were promises then? promised a number of things that have not happened. >> all of this in our video library. we will take that to the state department. secretary of state john kerry on the annual human-rights report. he also may field questions on the briefing today in the investigation of the boston bombings. >> it is a part of human-rights to make clear that people have the run in a marathon without violence. people have the right to enjoy a holiday without teor the rights of people are represented in many different ways. toproudly stand here today release again our human rights report.
i am glad to be here with weistant secretary zia as present these reports. these reports sent a very clear message that all governments have a responsibility to protect universal human-rights. pathhelp to blaze a forward for places where those rights are threatened or denied. i think this is one of the things we can be proudest of that we do here in the state department and in our country. standing up for values and speaking up for people who do not have any chance to speak for themselves. reaffirms, in my judgment, ameri's commitment to advancing basicedoms and dignity of all people. our support for the brave men and women around the world, who are working towards that goal,
sometimes unbelievably courageously in isolation in the most deserted places without the glare of the camera or the support of a lot of people. there are people with amazing current around the world. -- amazing coverage around the world. we need to stand up for them and stand behind them. i want to thank my colleagues in the bureau of human rights and labor. for many long days that go into these reports, this is a yearlong effort. the reports are taken seriously. we want them to be based on fact. there's a great deal of analysis that goes into them. for one country, let alone 99 countries, it should be. i saw firsthand men and women who have lived their entire
lives without the most basic rights. whether it was the right or the freedom to speak their minds or to worship fely or to elect their leaders or to choose the future that they wanted for themselves. seen what happens if we work together and encourage , that for the better amazing spark that grows into a shining light, a spotlight on hope and progress. i have seen tears running down the faces of those that have gotten to vote in the first time in their lives. i have seen the joint in young kids who have gone to school for the first time in their lives. i have seen tears of joy in voting in the philippines where women who worked for the voting booth cast a ballot for the first time in her 70 years of life.
courage -- iey, have seen the courage of -- after decades of confinement she has come out and has been able workingve and start alongside her former captors to try and build a stronger and a.eer the libyans, who fild freedom square in benghazi, first to bring down dictator and second to let the democratically elected government know of their demands. the rights these men and women struggled for reflect what we americans hold dear. they are key to our dna. they aren't exclusively american values. i want to stress that. they are not american rights. not western values for
western rights. belong to all people. all governments have a responsibility to protect and promote these rights. that is what we call it universal rights. is not a human rights foreign policy. it is not a foreign policy priorities and because it is the right thing to do. it is tied to our own security. it is tied to the possibility of prosperity and nation's living by rule of law. countries were strong human- rights prevail are countries where people do better. economy strive, rules of law are better. there are countries that lead on the world's station project stability across the regions. strong respect for human rights is not merely an indicator that the country is likely doing
unleashes a country's potential. it helps to advance growth and progress. of a countrythink like burma for a minute. because of its steps towards democratic reform, a country that has been isolated for years is now making progress. has it reached for rwanda to be? no. but it is on the road. it is moving. more people are contributing to the economy and participating in the government, leading to faster growth and development. by starting to embrace universal rights the government is opening the doors to a stronger partnership with their neighborhood -- with their neighborhood in countries throughout the wor. many challenges remain. corruption has toe oted o remaing politica prisoners need to be freed. and horrible mob violence of
recent days is another distressing reminder of how long it takes to build the habits of the heart. burma is likely to continue a long a promising path of renewal. for other countries in regions in transition, the way forward is much less clear. human rights will be a key factor in shaping their destinies. like the countries of the arab awakening, this is a movement that started with the demand for greater rights, dignity, an opportunity. --e tunisian card vendor o fruit vendor who let himself on fire o of the dignity to sell his wares withoutnd fro parents -- wiout interference
and corruption. the students in terror square were not driven by religion or an ideology. they were driven by their aspirations to have jobs, education, security, and a future. that really is the difference. entrenched regimes have been swept out and governments have been slow to guarantee those rights and protect the most we still seend, resistance in this part of the world. in syria, assad is coming to power, responding to cries of freedom with murder and mayhem, more bloodshed. and sacrifice across theho he region will never be realized if it their human-rights are denied or ignored. thee and elsewhere, government's continued to restrict civil society cannot suppress dissent, and stifle
free expression. the religious minorities find themselves in prison for violating blasphemy law. on-line activists are shut down for criticizing governments' or shining light on corruption or trying to speak out and expressed their view about a different future. our marginalize or criminalize. women and girls are being targeted as a weapon of war and being attacked for the simple act of going to school. goin school. these tactics are as intolerable as they are shortsighted. they hold countries back, create instability, divide societies, and they set off cycles of retribution. anywhere that human rights are under threat, the united states will bradley stand up, unabashedly, and continue to promote greater freer, greater openness, and greater
opportunity for all people. that means speaking up when those rights are imperiled. it means providing support and training to those who are risking their lives every day so their children can enjoy more freedom. it means engaging governments at the highest levels and pushing them to live up to their obligations to do right by their people. that means encouraging businesses to respect human rights wherever they operate. for nearly four decades, these reports, the report we're putting out today, has helped us to make progress forward on that vision. these reports are thoreau, honest, and they need to become because our policies are grounded in a clear-eyed assessment of government as they are, but how they want to be or how they pretend to be. with each installment of these reports, we try to dig deeper are threatened.he cuban rights is year we have included more
data on prison conditions, official corruption, laborites, and the effect of traditional practices on women's rights, and we have expanded coverage of lbgtand disability rights. we hope these reports will help lawmakers here and abroad, scholars, help students come civil society groups, and anyone who shares our commitment to universal human rights. i want to be clear here and while these reports support our engagement with governments, activists, and advocates, they are only a small fraction of what we do on this issue. they are just one tool to try to shed light and create accountability and hopefully move people in the right direction and of our policy forward. they support the efforts, every single day, of our to but it's an hour to limit exports, and they show brave citizens around the world and those who would
abuse them that america is watching. those are efforts i am committed to. and when i travel overseas, i make a point of meeting whit civil society leaders, journalists, bloggers, and students, all of whom can offer a different perspective on the state of human rights that my government -- that government counterparts may present. 80 where i sit down with presidents, prime minister some other leaders, i want you to know this issue all always is on our agenda, even when it means telling hard truths. because part of the american spirit is the belief in the dignity and potential of every single person, part of american leadership is speaking out on people who cannot speak for themselves. it is also standing up for those who fight for their own rights, sometimes in the most desolate
places, without support. it is our effort to stand up for the universal rights of all people. again, i think you. and then to turn things over who willra keya, answer questions and make statements and others who will answer your questions as we go forward. thank you very much, everybody. appreciate it. you, secretary. i would like to say a few words on how we use the reports to inform our diplomacy around the world and give you an overview of some of the major developments they described over the past year. then i would be happy to take harsh as. human rights are central to america's global diplomatic engagement. these reports are the factual foundation upon which we build and shape our policies. human rights are on the agenda and all our bilateral relations,
such as during the recent u.s.- vietnam human rights dialogue where we urge the release of political prisoners. we advocate on behalf of those in prison for their activism or beliefs, including chinese nobel and others all over the world. the individual reports stand alone and speak for themselves. i commend them to you for information on specific countries or regions trip at the same time i would like to highlight the balance from 2012. first is we continue to see a shrinking space for civil society in a growing number of countries. china, egypt, and russ shah, to name a few. permitting new laws the freedom of expression, assembly, association, and
religion, tightened restrictions on organizations receiving funding from abroad. regardless of the means, the result is the same. when governments stifle civil side, the countries are deprived of ideas, energy, and the ingenuity of their people that are needed for long-term stability and success in the 21st century. we also saw freedom of the media under increasing threat in 2012. record numbers of journalists were killed in a line of duty or as a consequence of their reporting. governments took steps to stifle the press to the use of overly andad counterterrorism laws harassment or imprisonment. aed up the press in india upon some governments specifically
targeted freedom of expression on the internet for new restrictive the decision, denial of service attacks, and harassment of on-line activists. in egypt, a blogger has been repeatedly arrested and harassed by the government. throughout the middle east into the top, men and women continue to organize an advocate for c future.economics econom including setbacks, sexual violence against women and repression against religious minorities. attacks against hiowpele in syria, tensions and violence continued in iraq come across and freedomnts restricted of expression throughout the gulf. these struggles are not confined to the middle east hit especially the issue of violence
against the most marginalized groups in society. the reports document discrimination against persons of wrigglers -- a religious and ethnic minorities as well as against other vulnerable populations, such as persons with disabilities and lesbian and gay, bisexual, and transgendered people in every region. women and girls continue to be at risk around work and facing abuses ranging from sexu violence to harmful traditional practices. from afghanistan to condo, women and girls were taught burts and repression of try to live their daily lives to change society's for the better, and exercise of fundamental freedoms that our birthright of all human beings. not all news from 2012 was discouraging. ed by what isagin
happening in burma. they have released prisoners since 2011, many of whom have been in prison for more than a deckhecade. pressvernment is relaxing censorship and allowing trade unionsrmmaments oth cour'structu intact. as the secry noted, we are concerned by the conflict in a state and communal violence in central berurma. georgette held elections -- held elections, and every day men and women took risk to stand up for universal human rights and better the lives of others. i would like to echo the secretary's thanks to collins overseas, including our senior
editor, who have worked to put these reports together. this is a massive undertaking, and we strive to do better. this year we have included more comprehensive information on prison conditions, corruption within governments, workers' rights, and rights of women and girls. we hope the reports will shed light on human rights conditions, and we're committed to work to stop abuses and support universal rights for all. i will stop there on that debt. i am happy to take your questions. [indiscernible] >> you and the secretary mentioned you bring up human rights issues during all your visits, the hard truth is, as you call it. he went to china, we barely heard a word about
human rights. can you tell us about the hard truths that were purchased during that visit. >> promoting human rights is part of our bilateral agenda with china. we repeatedly raised specific human rights cases with the chinese government's and dialogues and high-level discussions, and during the visit he raised specific cases with the chinese government to include the case of a few of someone, who raised the allegations of abuse during his imprisonment. some of the other cases that we raised regularly i mentioned, .hich include other individuals thats a few of the many political prisoners in china. i refer you to our ports which have more detail on this issue. >> do you make any progress regarding their conditions? >> i think it is part of our ongoing dialogue.
i want to talk about the palestinian prisoners. i wonder if you see increased activities, if you bring that issue to bear with the israeli government. >> i would reiterate the united states rses hun rights issues with the highest levels at the israeli goverent. the reports this year occupied territories -- some o the major human rights problems were identified are arbitrary arrests and torture and abuse, often with impunity by multiple actors great restrictions on civil liberties and the inability of residents to hold the government accountable. this is taking place in areas under hamas and it is really control. >> [indiscernible]
secretary -- turkish officials, have they been in regular contact with them? [indiscernible] >> sure. vital ally, human rights are a part of our broader engagement. some issues of concern noted our freedom of expression, the status of minorities and vulnerable populations, and legal reform. what we think is turkey's constitutional reform process presents an opportunity to improve the protection of minorities, women, and children, as well as expanding freedom of expression. >> [indiscernible] this will be his third time in turkey this year. >> this is part of our regular
engagement, so for further detail -- >> i wondered if you could tell oncerned you a about this attrition in russia. don't you think the society that has shrunk even more since you got this report covered last year -- >> right. if you could talk generally about how you see it. >> sure. >> are implementing the law that you said was passed. >> the report's cover only through december 31, but the pattern we have seen emerge in russia is deeply troubling with respect to the emergence of an increasingly restrictive and run for the exercise of civil liberties. this includes the measures with ngpect to registration of oo's, but also restrictions on
press. we made a commitment to dialogue with the russian government, but we are committed to open dialogue with civil society and supporting their efforts. ?> can you follow up on that in the past, i the u.s. government has talked a lot about the concern about human rights abuses in chechnya, and i wonder if you think the events and boston are born to change in any way whether or not we will see human rights in chechnya. , with respect to the ongoing investigation in boston, have to reiterate that the secretary of , that it would be inappropriate to comment at this time. with respect to the situation in the northern caucasus, this has been part of our human rights reporting on russia and our country reports since 1995. you'll find quite a bit of
information in this year's report, and they know at sears abuses taking place. sirius human rights abuses humang place -- serious rights abuses taking place. concern about guantanamo? prisonersstill 86 cleared for release. the group agreed with [indiscernible] >> we hold ourselves to the same standards we assess others fret the press and has made clear his commitment to close in guantanamo, but this has to be done in accordance with u.s. law. i would have to refer you back to for the statements by the white house and the spokesman on that. >> [indiscernible]
for people who did not have answered, iions and servi encourage you to go over there. thank you. [captions copyright tial ble satellit] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the secretary talked about the investigation in boston. the secretary was part of a briefing at the white house on the investigation of the remains blues in boston.
a lockdown continues. amtrak shutting down travel between new york and boston as police continued the manhunt, and we will keep you posted on any new updated briefings and news as they -- as we're able to. this afternoon at 4:00, we will bring you a conversation on japan us economy, the foreign minister is in washington for the world bank meeting, the international monetary fund, and he will be at the center for strategic and international studies this afternoon, at 4:00 p.m. eastern. >> i urge you to come up with a number to tell this committee and the american people, we have responsibility as well, and for you to say we're just be going to see how things turned out, it will determine the size of the post-2014 force, this is a
tragic and terrible mistake for which we may pay a very heavy price. >> can i comment on that? to be clear i did not say to leave it completely vague. we are today advising, assisting at the battalion level. we will lift off at the brigade level this fall. the number is linked to the level we believe we need to provide advice and assist post- 2014. >> you have to wait until tn to determine that? we do when i sgest is this is the first afghan summer in the lead. this summer will be the bellwether for afghan performance in the 2014 and beyond. >> this weekend, the commander of u.s. and allied forces in afghanistan on expected december 20 thousand -- december 2014 troop numbers. at 8:30 p.m., the dedication of
the zimmermann meeting room who was shot as he rushed the gunman who wounded his boss, representative gabrielle giffords. sunday at 9:00, from london, portions of margaret thatcher's funeral service. on c-span2, but tv ads to los angeles forheti festival of " separate book panels and your questi authors at the festival. and on c-span3, american history tv, books at revolutionary-era printing. that is sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. is today on capitol hill the bipartisan group of eight senators introduced their immigration proposal. we spoke this morning on washington journal to a cap or corporate for details on the legislation and the debate ahead. staffrebecca kaplan is a writer with national journal. guest: thanks for having me. host: we saw the senate bill
released. the gang of eight. what are the hallmarks of this bill? guest: a few major elements. profiley the most high- issue is the pathway to citizenship for people, about 11.5 million illegal immigrants currently in this country. what the program will do with a few triggers at the beginning such as a border strategy by the department of homeland security being operational, it would allow most of those people to apply for residential status. means they will not have been convicted of a serious crime, they will have to pass a background check, paying taxes, and pay a fine. that's for six years. and they can have another background checks and pay a fine. that would allow them to work and travel and come out of the shadows. andou years in that status after 10 years, and passing a few more benchmarks like an e-
verify system being operational, at that point they would be allowed to apply for permanent residency. and another background check to prove they will be able to pin employed and not the burden on society. if it passed that benchmark, after three more years, they will be allowed to become a citizen. that leaves us with a 13-year path to citizenship for the people here illegally now. it will be a little different if you were brought to the country before the age of 16. dreamers will have five-year path to citizenship. and agricultural workers who feel an important need in a lot of our industries, if they also are looking at a five-ye. path to year the other big part of the plan is for security. that will put up to about $6.5 billion into a department of homeland security plan calls for more security strategy that combines personnel, the ground, and technology like drones to
monitor the border. as far as interior enforcement, there will put in place a mandatory employment verification system, e-verify. and assistant to make sure e- verify is manageable and for employers and fraud-proof, to make sure people cannot make up social security numbers or work off stolen social security numbers. host: the gang of eight spoke yesterday on capitol hill. fourrepublicans and democrats. lindsey graham of south carolina addressed concerns that he has heard from his peers about the pathway to citizenship. [video clip] >> learn the language, as a civics exams, pay a fine, work, pass a criminal background check, half of my family would be excluded. this is no easy task. [laughter] i'm glad we are not applying it to ourselves.
knowope is that america i is ready for immigration reform. you look at all the polls. if the congress ready to do something that we should have done a long time ago? i really believe we are. if you think the border can be better secured, we have an idea for you to consider. if if you think there is a shortage of illegal labor in the current system works too hard to access, we have an idea for you to consider. if you are a union member or just an average american word about losing your job with cheap labor coming into your country, we have an idea to prevent that. if you are in the shadows and you are worried about what's going to happen to you, we have a solution. you are going to have to earn the right to be an american. it's fair and tough, but it's going to be available. i have one bill, and this is all said and done, there will not be a third wave of illegal immigration.
ronald reagan gave amnesty to 3 million people trying to do the right thing and the congress failed to follow it through. if if we give the 11 million a second chance and we do't secure our borders and fix the broken immigraonysm c and provide access to leg labor d the things we should have 2 shame on us. this bill fixes the problem in my opinion. i am going to fight for this bill. if you have a better idea, bring it on. if you want to kill it, we have to talk about that. host: senator lindsey graham of south carolina. rebecca kaplan, who is his audience? guest: two groups talking to. the first is the american people are not unanimous about whether people who entered this country illegally should be able to become citizens one day. so he is speaking to the american people broadly, a minority, but people not get behind a lot of the provisions in the proposal. on capitol hill, there are some people concerned
about what happened in 1986, the last time president reagan granted a mass amnesty. millionre about 3 people at the time who were legal after that process. what's happened over the last few decades is that people just kept coming back here illegally. that's one of the things people are very concerned about stopping this time. chief among those people is jeff sessions from alabama. he has two major concerns probably will hear about today in the judiciary committee. one is that the influx of workers into the legal system will create too much competition on employment opportunities andamerickers he's also concerned about long- term entitlement costs. in the first 10 years while people have the registered provisional immigrant status, they're not eligible for any federal benefits. it's not until 10 years they were able to access those
programs. senator sessions is a. a decade out, or 15 or 20 years, we will have big entitlement costs. host: if you would like to join the conversation and talk about immigration with rebecca kaplan of national journal, here are the numbers -- as our guest mentioned, there will be a hearing today for the senate judiciary committee on immigration legislation. c-span will carry the at 10:00 eastern time after this program. you can also find it on our website, as we look at the gang of eight and the republicans among that gang, how significant is if they have signed on to the proposal? guest: there is arranged. a you have people like senator
john mccain, who has worked on this issue a long time. he was part of the big effort in 2006 and 2007. he has been a captain of the republican team along with chuck schumer from the democratic side. probably even more high-profile and keep this effort is marco rubio from florida, a lawmaker with a lot of tea party credentials. he has maintained a conservative record on a lot of other issues. he voted against the fcal cliff deal over the new year. that has helped him asserts that i'm still a conservative even though i'm working on immigration reform. he's trying to sell a more conservative vision for the insistent and our country and our during that what we have now is amnesty, effectively, and the best thing to do is fix that system to get people legal so we can abide by the role of law. he's a key voice not only to appeal to republicans around the country but also to provide cover for republicans in the senate to might be little nervous about voting for the package, since they are worried there might be a backlash from their constituents. host: now to mike on the phone. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call.
i have been busy watching this immigration bill from the senate. my issue is that is there any way there would be a commitment for people who have been in america undocumented for more than 10 years or so, like the provision for people that our guest workers or people that came here and there were 16 years old? is there any way they can adjust people that have been trying to file for the past 10 years or something but the administration did not allow them to get a green card for residency? some kind of leeway that would make it easier for people that have been filing for years that did not get a green card? host: would this affect you personally? caller: no. i have a family member here that they are asking him to
leave. he's been here more than 10 years and has filed. they refused him. guest: there's a long way it and that has contributed to the fact many people choose to come here illegally instead of working through the legal process. there will be some reforms to that system to make it work faster. they will create two tracks. a merit-based visa that takes into account the unemployment level in the country. then we will look at your education, employment, how long you've been in the country, whether you have family connections here. there will be a separate path that deals with family members here. if you have a spouse or child of a legal permanent resident in this country now, they will be billed to come here immediately under this plan. people who have been here 10 years with work obligations, they will be able to become permanent residents. as far as the people who have
been here long time, part of the plan if you have to have been here before december 31, to be booked to apply for this registered provisional status, because they want to make sure they don't have people coming across the border in waves now that they have heard the u. might be legalizing a bunch of people. so that the cut off. you have to have been here before december 31, 2011. host: our caller asked about the amendment process. how will that work? guest: the first hearing, right after our program this morning at 10:00 will be the senate judiciary committee. it will start considering the entire plan as presented by the gang of eight. there will be a few different aspects. secretary janet napolitano from homeland security will testify before the committee. she will probably talk about border security, how to come up with a strategy for making sure we are securing our southern border there's also going to be
two economists talking today. douglas holtz-eakin, former director of the congressional budget office. and another economist named peter,ho is on the u.s. civil gh c ttify about how illegal immigration can affect the u.s. economy. a hearing on friday. then on monday a second hearing. after that we have to see how the process unfolds. especially republicans on the judiciary committee are calling for more than the currently scheduled hearings. probably sometime in early may we will move to the markup process which is where the senators on the judiciary committee can begin offering amendments and releasing how they want to continue to shape the bill. we hope it gets passed out of committee and go to the senate floor. host: rebecca kaplan of the national journal. wilmington, north carolina, kathleen is on our democrat line. thatr: my biggest fear is
our country is in a state of fear. fear is the worst thing we could ever have as americans. we have based our country from the beginning of a great work ethic. there are so many things we could do instead of being frightened every time something happens. things happen domestically, foreign. and immigration, we have a statue of liberty that does welcome everybody. i believe that we should give some amnesty, because of amnesty would cut out a lot of the red tape and bureaucracy. the fear factor ist h really got everybody so nervous and concerned. host: thank you. guest: people are understandably concerned about american jobs. that will be a big priority of a lot of lawmakers, to make
sure if americans are not adversely affected by the bill. a lot of conservative economists including doug holtz- eakin, grover norquist, argued the long-term economic benefits of immigration are so great that not only will it not contribute to the federal government, but it will help raise the standard of living by increasing the gdp for everyone in the u.s. they argue that reform in this process will actually be beneficial to everyone, to all american workers. there are people who disagree. the heritage foundation put out a study in 2007 saying there would be a negative affect on fici a person who worked on a study in 2008 argued illegal immigration heard the employment chances and wages of black americans. so there's disagreement on the issue anders understandable concern about making a big change in our laws. host: here is the headline of the wall street journal --
host: we will hear more from rebecca kaplan in a moment. first let's hear from marco rubio discussing the bill yesterday. [video clip] >> let me close with one final point to my fellow americans who share my commitment to limited government and free enterprise who helped elect me in 2010. i would remind them america is a nation of immigrants. republicans and democrats have failed to enforce the law and the result is we have millions of people here against our immigration walker. but we're not going to deport them. let's secure the border.
let's bring these people out of the shadows. there will undergo a background check. they will pay a fine and start paying taxes. it will not qualify for federal benefits. sh wif we did not have th pblem, but we do and we have to fix it. leaving things the way they are is the real amnesty. host: on twitter -- give us a sense of the size of the bill. guest: 844 pages. initial estimates were that it would be as much as 1500 pages. it has still been a large bill for a lot of the legislative aides, hill to look through. in terms of preparing for hearings today, the members on that tradition in committee who
were not part of the gang of eight are working to try to read through the whole bill in time during it is a bit of direct process. in terms of how it came together, the group of lawmakers has been meeting since after the election to start thinking about how they wanted reform immigration laws. the membership of the group has shifted. the senator from utah was involved in talks but ultimately decided not to go along with the direction of the game because he had concerned about the direction of citizenship. it really came together in fery wmarco rubio signed on, really got on board. as always been a commitment to have the same number of democrats and republicans so it was a bipartisan effort. late january they received -- released a set of principles and that they have been working on since the end of january to craft a bill. the self-imposed deadlines got pushed back a couple times. i think they were a little optimistic about how quickly they could get this done at the
beginning. but there's really a desire for people to tackle this issue before everybody starts focusing on the 2014 midterm elections. re-election is no climate in which legislation happens on capitol hill. host: all the time and money that was spent on this, what we should have done was to say to the illegals, deport yourself and we will not touch you. but if you don't support yourself and you make us come after you, we have to put you in prison for two years mandatory and then confiscate money that you made here to pay for your deportation.
that is my -- i think that is what we should've done. host: what do you think about the republicans who are part of this proposal? caller: i think -- open up a can of worms. they're not going to get the spanish vote any way. they are being played for fools and so are the american people. they should not do anything of the sort. host: thanks for your call, mark. biggestne of the changes about the debate piercing now as opposed to 10 years ago is people are not talking about mass deportation as a viable option anymore. it would be a huge cost to get 11 million people out of this country. that's one of the reasons so many people are open to the idea of legalizing and normalizing the status of people who are here. the idea of supporting them is not feasible.
thee are people -- one of most important issues for a lot of people like stephen king of are you in the house is america has law and it should be respected. that's why a lot of people take issue with the idea of legalization or citizenship. one of the things jeff sessions told reporters on tuesday after the first overview of the bill came out was that he does not think people who came here illegally -- illegally should be able to enjoy the benefits of being a u.s. citizen one day. there are people agree with the caller. but there's been no appetite for rounding up 11.5 million people now. and the idea that immigrants would self support is not a popular idea especially with senator voters. hispanic voters.
host: let's take a listen to david vitter's criticism. [video clip] >> we're concerned this bill is the same fundamentally flawed model from the past. it is immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement. we have tried that model before. it has failed miserably before. if we all want to solve this problem, not continue it, certainly not to grow it. so we are fundamentally concerned that an immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement grow the problem prevent what happened in 1986. that was the model in the 1986 reform. the promise and then was we will just do this once and we will solve the problem and never have to look back. of course we did not solve the problem. we did not nearly perpetuate the problem. we quadrupled the problem. what was 3 million illegal aliens than is 11 million or 12 million today.
host: that was the senator from louisiana critical of the bill. let's hear from a louisiana caller. ruth from lafayette, democrat. caller: hi. theve been listening to problem in boston. chechnya person from be a prominent citizen only one year? talkingke everybody's about the southern border. what about the northern border? the soviet union is connected to alaska through the bering strait. i had an opportunity to be in alaska -- i'm a physician. i know that they found some [indiscernible] and through that waterway.
no one talks about that. cannt to know how you become an american citizen in one year. and why are they giving the mexican people such a hard time? all i have seen is very hard working people who are trying to better themselves. i can understand their plight, because of all the unrest in mexico and the south american countries. guest: thanks for calling. the first thing i would say is it is very early. this is a story that has been breaking overnight. there's a lot we don't know yet. immediately in the aftermath of the boston bombings earlier this week there was a lot of information that came out that turned out later not to be true. we will have to wait and see exactly how the story plays out. but that is a concern, to make sure the people who come into this country are not doing so to harm americans. that is something that will
have to be dealt with through this reform process. there are so many complicated s a lot of fear when you find out someone who came to this country on the committing a crime. that's part of the reason so many provisions in the bill the gang of eight came out with makes sure people have to pass criminal background checks over and over to make sure since they've been here they have not been committing crimes. we will have to wait to see what the circumstances weren't with them coming into that country. ed as for the borders, traditionally, the southern borders have been where we have a lot more southern issues and the economic conditions which are better to the northwest in canada and tou central mexico and it's an issue of you go where the problem is. solve have a problem to and since we haven't had an issue with border crossings of that nature on the northern
border, it's not something that's really being discussed. the attention is where the problem rights now on the southern border but there's care taken with our airports, with our seaports to make sure anyone who is coming into this country is doing so in a legal manner. who is politico's headliner -- it's citing nbc news and other outlets that are doing early reports that these two men may be brothers from the chechnyan republic. tom wrote the immigration is dead as ofay rebecca kaplan, what will you be watching in terms of the american perspective on immigration as we watch the story play out? guest: one of the most interesting thing is that right after we -- right after the bombings occurred earlier this week, some people -- just a very small number, started with steve king from iowa, he said these people could have been people -- it could have been
illegal immigrants in this country and that's the reason we need to be extremely cautious with immigration reform and a lot of other lawmakers in washington published back on the idea and say let's wait. and going forward, we're going to listen to all the lawmakers and this is a breaking news situation only a couple of hours old. until we know all this fact, it's going to be hard to draw conclusions to figure out something like this from happening into the system again. host: tricia is next on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have a question that's along the same lines as what we were just talking about. backgroundabout the check. considering what we know or may not know about the two young men who planted the bombs at the boston marathon, how
stringent are these background checks? and i mean, what can be do to make sure that we' leing terrorists or someone has ill content for our country into this country? thank you. guest: that's going to be one of those things that's going to have to work out by the department of homeland security and d.h.s. overseas the customs enforcement community. and so they are going to be the ones that work with local law enforcement, work with federal law enforcement to make sure that the only people who come to this country are not one who is intend to do americans harm. host: garland, texas, dean, republican. caller: i want to make a point that it really feel sorry for these people, but, you know, what american people need to understand, we're $16.8 trillion in u.s. debt and the clock is steady tick and we've got 30 million people on welfare
and food stamps. if you legalize these 11 million people, do you have work for them or are they going to run up the debt some more? i mean, we're heading down a real bad road here. you know, we've got drugs all over the country. the cost of living is rising at enormous rate. and we want to leave alive 11 million people so we can go run up the debt some more? i don't understand this logic and you can comment on it. host: a freelance reporter writing congress should suspend visas. it's not fair that the h.v.'s take decent jobs. take care of the home first. st: that's a concern that's shared by senator jeff sessions, about the effects on american employment opportunities and wages. guest: and it is something that the bill does try to deal with through a couple of different avenues. a lot of tease -- these are programs, the numbers that are going to be determined, the
merit based visas will be affected by the current unemployment rate in the united states and making sure that they're not taking jobs away from american workers. there's going to be some stringent requirements at high- tech companies to use the visa for visas to make sure they're making a concerted effort to hire americans first. as far as your concern about people getting legalized and g goinhe welfare goal, with the plan laid out, it's hard to see that happening right now. with the first to 10 years they're in this provisional stalkers people who become legalized during the immigration plan will not be able to access the benefit system. that means no medicare no, social security so there's a lot that they would not be able to take advantage of and some of the requirements for citizenship require them to will meet ahey certain percentage of the poverty line to make sure they're not becoming a burden on american taxpayers. but one of the other
interesting things is some study the question of how immigration reform would effect the u.s. system and they say in the long run, it's very beneficial and will help bring down the deficit in particulaou n who will be testifying before the judiciary key this morning. he found the deficit ceiling will come down for trillions of dollars. his study found $2.5 trillion because when people become legalized, they will start paying taxes and they'll also have to pay back taxes, fines and fees through part of this immigration system. so that means they're not going to be coughing -- costing taxpayers money to go through this process and as many economists believe will raise the quality of life. host: the senate judiciary committee takes up the immigration bill this morning. c-span 1 will have that live. you'll also find that on our
website. rebecca kaplan is a staff writer at in the national journal. it includes covering the campaign looking at the republican side of things. she worked on that and she also has covered the white house, as part of national journal's team and now she's looking at congress. one of the aspects of congress you're looking at is the house. here's a recent headline of her story. forget working groups, the house judiciary is moving immigration on its own. what's happening in the house? >> the chairman is actually an immigration lawyer by training and that is something he did for a long time before coming to congress. and what we see in the house right is no somewhat similar to what's happening in the senate. last bipartisan group of eight lawmakers and for republicans and democrats and they're working on their own plan and parts of that group, the membership wasn't firmed up until this year but some of those numbers have been working for like four years on coming up with an immigration plan for the
house. but as they're working, the chairman who has held five or six issues have decided he's done waiting for them. he's not saying let's not see what this group is doing but he's saying let's get the ball rolling. and see what we can do. he hasn't said what the timeline is but he's going to start introducing some immigration bills into the committee on single issues and he hasn't specified what those issues are going to be but looking at some of the things that have gone through the committee in the past from people like bob or his predecessor lamar smith, we can guess there might be a verified bill to extend that unemployment verification program. we might see an agricultural program because that's one of the industries where employers might have trouble filling those positions. they could deal with high skills immigrants. those are the things that we might see from the chairman but he's playing his cards pretty close to the vest right now. host: lake charles, louisiana, democrat. hi. caller: hi.
host: go ahead. caller: hello? yes. and an illegal immigrant i've been here 13 years altogether now doing it illegally. i am in h-1. i've been in h-1 for six years now. as you probably know, like thetn an h-1, and i'm really concerned that all that i have doing it legally is just let the system turn me finally into an illegal. it's been so hard. i have not gone anywhere. i know a whole bunch of people who use other ways at the limit of -- you know, unlawfulness who got away and got ahead. you know, so rebecca, was ying that finally, this deal
has something that would eliminate the backlog for legal immigrants. but i'm still unsure as to how r . ould do fo so please, rebecca, what is i have two daughter who is are born here and i'm concerned to this, you know. i'm really afraid for them that, you know, i may not get an extension for my h-1 visa and i would become an illegal and then what? petty work? i'm not sure. istever it is, this bill going to fall to understand who have been doing it all legally. host: and where have you come from the united states? caller: yes. host: where from? caller: i am from west africa. host: and what field do y rk
i'm a teacher. host: great. well guest: you raise an excellent point and that's a big concern for a lot of people and a major reason that so many people come to the country legally and like you pointed out, people who come from the country from a visa and it expired because the process of trying to stay here has been very complicated. that's within of the things that democrats and the republicans agree has to be dealt with as part of this plan. so some of the reforms are going to deal with making the visas more merit based and that's going to start at about 120,000 visas a year and if the unemploymentate falls below 8.5%, it can go up to,000 adviceas -- visas every year. tear going to consider your education, your employment, your family connections in the united states and how long you've been here.
and those merit-based visas are going to go to half for high skills and half to low skills workers. a lot of the backlog in the current system right now and one major concern on capitol hill is people who have come here illegally, not be given a special -- legally not being given a pathway to those eople. and the way to deal with that is they have to go to sort of the end of these lines for merit based visas and employment visas and they're not going to be able to jump ahead of people who have been waiting and going to the process get in line. they're going to be allowed to wait from this country wh legal toss but citizenship is going to come to the people who come to the legal way. host: rebecca kaplan, a look at workers and visas. schoolh here the high workers of the current versus proposed and agricultural
workers. there will be no hard cap but no more than $337,000 would be allowed at any one time. the current is no hard cap and the proposed would be capped at $112,000 in the first year. and we look at low skilled workers and how that would played out. you talk about the higher worker range. give us more of a sense of both agriculture businesses as well as the communities are looking agent the low skilled anding a -- and ag jobs? guest: it was being negotiated by representative for the growers and farm workers and they have the help of a couple of senators dug including dianne feinstein and marco rubioo to hammer out those deals. a lot of jobs that are not filled by americans lie housekeeping and hotels,
construction industries and restaurants. they'll be able to get three- year visas that can be renewed over three years and they will start with 20,000 which lower, with hoping, theyere hoping to get more like 400,000 visas a year. and can raise up to 75,000 visas of the year. and ultimately, it could be as high as 200,000 of these low skilled visas every year if this new department called the bureau of labor market research which is created i by the senator is that it seems the conditions are acceptble and there's a need for foreign employment. on the agricultural front, there's negotiations. both of these negotiations hit disagreements over how much these workers would get paid. for agricultural visas, the 112
now, a year for the first five years and so we will never have more than 337,000 agricultural workers here during a threye riod it's going to phase out the existing h2a visa program. it's a system that many employers say it's cumber some, it's hard to work with. and it's a field where it's difficult to find american workers. if you've worked here for a certain number of years, you are going to embark on a accelerated process to become a u.s. citizen and you would be able to get a green card in about five years. and again, pass background check. not committed any serious crimes and there will be a lower fine right now of $400 for agricultural workers. host: let's hear from bill, independent in illinois. caller: good morning, c-span. my concern is the fact that i know a girl who came here
pregnant, illegally and she had her baby, which became a natural u.s. citizen due to birth right law. she applied for aid to pay for her hospital bill and, you know, and when she did that, d.c. best -- d.c. contacted her and she now gets over $40,000 in federal assistance programs due to the link program, section 8 housing because of the child. and she also gets daycare unthe r ce and she's working for a major an peoria. and when i hear that everybody says well, illegal immigrants will not get any benefits, i hope everybody listening, especially minimum wage workers, i hope they're appalled at what i just told you. host: ok.
let's get a response from rebecca. guest: there are certain parts that the u.s. benefits system that people can access that the supreme court ruled that people with public access cannot be thated of public school. applies to children who are here. you share a concern that is i'm sure shared by many people across the cub, bue ist er lot -- country, but there are a lot of attention to how much people who are drain a system and house members who are working on immigration plan to make sure that the major federal benefit programs that are putting us into debt are not accessible until they do have green cards. one thing it is important to take into account is the fact that many economists believe that bringing people out of the shadows and allowing them to work not under the table any longer. not only will mean that they will make a working wage and be
able to support themselves better, but they will be paying taxes into the system. so it won't be a drain in the economy. and one of the big parts of e plan for people who want to gain the provision ltatuis baey will have to pay back some taxes if they were employed under the table in the u.s. host: we see a headline in the "washington times." one member of congress is saying that the president should step aside on reforng iigti. this key democrat says it's congr's rn. and you can hear more on the quote of the interview on "newsmakers." part of that will be on sunday here on c-span, 10:00 a.m. eastern time and 6:00 p.m. let's go to niagara falls, new york and here from levon, a democrat. caller: hello. i don't appreciate the fact that it's not just me, but it's just my family and i.
we come from a long struggle. we come from long striving to be better citizens of america. struggling with education and getting in school, grants and we actually -- i'm an accomplished man of cdia ow did my fe gindon't undersnd shambles behind my stolen bills while i work on bills. host: what does this have to do with immigration? caller: every time someone cries about immigration, they get more advantage tan my -- than minorities in health just in general. host: so you have concerns about lack of jobs and opportunities because of immigrants? caller: yes, pretty much. host: ok. guest: that's a widely shared concern. the reality is there are some jobs that have not traditionally been desired by american workers but they're still important
positions that still a lot of small and large businesses need to be filled. and so one this aims of current immigration system is to make sure that those positions can be filled by legal workers and there are adjustments in the new visa categories that accounts how unemployment is faring for new workers. host: rebecca kaplan, staff writer for national journal. thanks for coming in and talking about the immigration bill with us. >> thank you. host: we look forward to having you again. guest: thanks so much. the world bank and imf meetings are happening in coming up in 25 minutes, we will from the center for strategic and international studies. a meeting held late this morning between the president, vice president, and his national security team, including the
director of the fbi and attorney general eric holder, boston officials. officials continue to look for the suspect.- we will have updates as warranted and briefings as well. the f 35 is the most expensive weapons system in the history of united states. it is an advanced warplane, fighter jet that is to be used by the air force, navy, and rain core. marine corps. that was supposed to be in the skies, fighting now. it is still in development. it is an incredibly troubled
program. it is a program that has gone tens of billions of dollars over budget. i borrowed into this program is a way to write about the overall challenges of trimming the defense budget. this program is in sularecause , delays, and the weight has been structured. -- weight has been structured. it's most defensive effective attribute may not be all of its radars and since ours -- sensors and missiles. it may well be the way it's been designed to evade budget cutters in washington. sunday at 8:00 on c-span q&a. >> earlier today postmaster general donahoe spoke at the national press club, speaking about postal reform ahe saturday delivery.
here's what he had to say. >> congress faces a simple choice. give the organization the flexibility to operate more effectively. in case you're wondering what that cost might be, the cost of ,ropping up our broken model including resolving all the debts and the false we currently can't afford to pay, might be in the neighborhood of $58 billion trade that's just through 2017. it would be completely unnecessary. it may shock you to learn that the postal service could be profitable today, and in the long-term future. we just need to operate differently. i'm optimistic. i'm optimistic that congress will pass the bill this year, and i'm optimistic about a restructured postal service for the future.
earlier this week we published an updated five-year business plan. a substantials budget gap by 2017. what's important about the plan, anybody the fact -- here could figure out a way to make math add up if you want to make extreme choices. what is important about this plan is it can be implemented in a responsible manner that is fair to both customers and employees. we do not have to resort to layoffs are contracting large chunks of business out up from our workforce. we do not have to makeadical changes. have to be bailed out by american taxpayers. do we need to make substantial change? yes. can we do it in a responsible way? absolutely.
we cannot afford to wait. in this full situation, time is money. if we do not start making some of these changes, we will only be left with extreme options. our situation is not much different than what the rest of the federal government faces and a lot of and local governments face today. we have to get ahead of these fiscal imbalances. -- imbalancesf weant to avd jonoticeable disruptor. one of the most important changes that we think in the plan is to take over her healthcare plan plan. everybody believes that the federal system is overly generous in terms of benefits. the federal health care system is not overly generous to our employees. .ut it is overly expensive that's why we want to shift our
employees and retirees from the federal system to a privately run plan. but we do that, we will be able to provide our employees and retirees with the same or better health-care coverage at a dramatically lower cost. oys and retirees $700 million a year in annual premiums and save the postal service $8 billion, because we would effectively eliminate the need to pre-fund one day further. we would also be able to invest much more ineffective health and wellness programs which we cannot do now. effective health and wellness programs which we cannot do now. that it so much sense fills me with optimism. we have to move in this direction, and i believe we will. >> comments from postmaster
donahoe. you can see his entire remarks tonight at 10:30 eastern here on c-span or any time online at c >> i strongly urge you to come up with a number to tell the committee and his american people -- we have a responsibility as well. for you to say, we're just going to see how things turn out that will determine the size of the 2014 force, i believe is a tragic and terrible mistake for which we may pay a very heavy price. >> can i comment on that? i didn't say julie but completely vague. we are today -- completely vague. 2014 iser post inextricably linked to the level that we believe we need to provide advice and assist post
2014. what i suggested was that this is the afghan's first summer in the league. i believe this summer will be the bellwether for afghan performance into 2014 and beyond. >> this week and on c-span marine general joseph dunford on expected december 2014 troop numbers. saturday afternoon at 12:30 eastern. the dedication of the gave zimmerman meeting room -- gabe tried tounded as hem. protect his boss, gabrielle giffords. tv heads to los angeles for the "l.a. times" festival of books. -span ree, american history tv looks at
revolutionary era printing from the american antiquarian society in massachusetts. >> earlier today secretary of state john kerry and mexican foreign secretary josé antonio meade held a press conference at the state department trade they offered -- department. they offered their condolences to the people of boston. >> good morning, everybody. i want to just, say that as a father and grandfather, my thoughts are of course in my hometown right now, boston, where events are still unfolding and the entire city is on lockdown. we are continuing to learn about the attack
on monday and the pursuit of justice following it. it is fair to say that this entire week we have been in a pretty direct confrontation with evil.ngrate and thank all of the law enforcement authorities for the extraordinary job that they have been doing on behalf of our citizens. in the past few days, we have seen the best and the worst of human behavior. it is the best that all of us really want to focus on. like everyone, we are going to keep watching. we will await word from the law enforcement officers before commenting further. and a huge pleasure for me an important moment to welcome one of our most important partners, our close neighbor and our friend, and i want to welcome my friend, the secretary.
one of the first calls i made when i became secretary of state was to josé. we share an alma mater together. he was a graduate student, i was .n undergraduate whatever we don't say right today, you can blame it on them. we obviously share much much more than alma mater. both of us are privileged to represent our extraordinary countries. we share a remarkable friendship and very strong partnership that is growing stronger all the time. for generations we have lived side-by-side as families and ighborhaeogr common interestsnd hopes and dreams. the foreign secretary and i shara firmommitment to the unique components of our relationship and we share a common vision for what we can achieve through even greater .ooperation and partnership
we share a friendship and an open line of communication, starting with the earliest conversations that i had when i assumed this office. we intend to remain in close contact with each other. we talked about that today. we have a lot of things to continue to cooperate on. we want to increase the economic growth of both of our countries, expand economic opportunity for people, and we want to provide greater security for the people of the united states and mexico. our countries share one of the most successful and interconnected economic partnerships in the world. it is based on mutual respect and shared responsibility. bilateral trade amounted to nearly $500 billion last year. that's more than four times what it was only 20 years ago.
high-level economic delegations have already been meeting, and we are exploring ways to strengthen our existing partnership, avenues for increased economic cooperation. i'm convinced we're going to find them. the people of the united states are also intently focused on the immigration debate. let me know that the two countries have made significant progress in building a strengthening our security over the last 10 years. almost one billion people legally cross the u.s.-mexico border every single day. more than 1.2 5 billion in trade passes between our countries every single day. you can't do that without major cooperation, but also without providing major opportunities for both of our countries. the foreign secretary and i agree that if we are going to
have tothese gains, we expand educational opportunities for our young people. already thousands of mexicans and americans students study in .ach other's countries are i we are developing oss-cultural understanding and 21st-century that make north america's platform for economic growth stand out from countries all around the world. president obama's 100,000 strong in the americas initiative will create even more opportunity for students over the course of the next years. finally, we know we have a responsibility to continue to address our security challenges. tore going to continue affect close security cooperation, respect for human and civil rights.
we understand those are deeply enshrined in both u.s. and mexican constitutions. at citizen security is critical to e ople of both of our countries. it's really good to welcome you here to washington. i look forward to our conversation. i know president obama is very much looking forward to his trip to mexico in may and meeting with the president. there we will be able to solidify some of the things we're talking about today. welcome to washington. thank you for the extraordinary partnership that we share. >> thank you, sir. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. allow me to express once again the solidarity of the people and government of mexico with united states, with the horrific incidents that took place last monday in boston. we stand beside you and have you in our hearts and prayers.
i also want to submit condolences to those affected by the explosion in the town of west, in texas. i want to commend the boston for heroicrtment action. we have just concluded a very productive meeting. we have touched upon a bilateral ,genda, educational infrastructure, security. we talked about the importance of security cooperation. we welcome the introduction of the immigration reform bill in the u.s. senate.
ofwelcome the fact constructive cooperation. mexico and united states have a very strong relationship. it would create more than $1 million per minute mexico is the most important export market for 22 of the 50 .nited states mexico and the u.s. exports to mexico more than it does to china and japan combined. the u.s. exports to mexico more than it does to any european as a group, and i think it is success.
it is something that we have built upon. we can look at it with a north american perspective and find common answers to global problems. i can think of no better partner to work with than secretary kerry, whose peal leadership of some of the ,'s best being recognized from security to climate change, to democratization of human rights. i spoke about our bilateral projects. we are very grateful for that relationship and the work we will do together. in a couple of weeks, we will receive president obama in mexico. we are honored by his decision to travel to our country. this will be the second face-to- face conversation in just over
five months, a testament to the commitment to advance our economic agenda, deep in the ties between societies, ensure the security of our citizens. thank you again, secretary kerry. thank you all for your attention. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> we will take to questions. >> what is the boston attack say about the threat to the u.s. posed by chechen extremists? have you been in touch with russia or any other country on the matter? wouldn't the russians see this as a validation of their arguments on chechnya, and maybe even syra regarding terrorism? the statedid specifically play in the investigation into the bombings?
, law this point enforcement officers are caring out an ongoing investigation -- carrying out an ongoing investigation. they are at critical stages here. it would be entirely inappropriate for me to be commenting on the tech talk around the larger issues outside of it -- tick tock around the larger issues outside of it. the fbi will lay out the details of contacts and information at the appropriate moment. the important thing right now is, as a president is said, we're going to find those responsible and bring them to justice. we are part of the way there. the president intends to finish that job. >> wouldn't an event like this, if it has any connection to chechnya or separatists in southern russia, wouldn't this
strengthen -- >> i'm not going to get into the hypothetical. let's wait and see what the fbi details at the appropriate time. the one thing i will say is, terrorist terror. -- terror is terror. this underscores the importance of all of us in remaining vigilant and cooperating together. terror and he were iworld against any country is unacceptable. -- anywhere in world agai y cctae. andtrengthens my resolve sense that we are on the right track, but there is more that we can do great president obama has made this -- do. president obama has made this a critical component of his foreign-policy. secretary, has been interest expressed in broadening
cooperation with the u.s. the on the border. what kinds of new initiatives or programs can we expect along the road? after the 9/11 attacks, secretary kerry, some countries in latin america saw that th relationship with them was put in the back burner for several years. event inticipate this boston could derail your intends to reach out to the region? >> we have agreed to enlarge our agenda. we are going to be talking about initiatives that have to do with high-level engagement. we will be talking and we will find a mechanism to continue to talk in terms of education and research innovation. those issues and the structure around them will be set in the agendas and talks set by president obama. >> the answer is profoundly,
yes. i intend to, personally. i had intended to try to travel to the region next week, but be events of this week and because of some other things happening, i've had to postpone that temporarily. i will be getting to the region very shortly. president obama is traveling to the region. president obama feels very strongly and has asked me to focus on how we can strengthen our economic partnerships in latin america and central america. i intend to do that. we talked today. the beginning of our conversation, very first thing out of my mouth was, we don't want to define his relationship with mexico or other countries in the context of security or counter narcotics traffic. we want to define a much larger in the context of our citizens economic needs and our capacity to do more on the economic frontier.
i'm convinced that we're going in termsf bsdrelationship. with the transatlantic investment trade and partnership program. in the long run mexico is a partner. we are already growing this relationship, we will continue to grow it. if it needs to be the defining issue of relationship, together with our commitment to democracy and human rights. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, appreciate it.
>> we are live at the center for strategic and international studies in washington. the international monetary fund will hold meetings this weekend, another of -- a number of foreign representatives are in washington. former prime minister will be talking about japan's economy. that will gets under way a few minutes late. we will have it live ones it starts. in boston, the lockdown continues in boston. you are looking at pictures from earlier today. president obama meeting with this national security team. giving an update on the fugitive coup is still at the leading authorities in the boston area -- the fugitive who is still eluding authorities and the boston area. congressional officials briefed by reporters. the boston marathon bombing suspect had collected pipe bombs, the grenades, an
improvised explosive devices before they confronted police late yesterday. we will have more updates and briefings as they become available. while we wait for the discussion to get under way, a look at the hearing earlier today, the judiciary committee hearing on the gang of eight immigration proposal, which was released yesterday. senators gramm and agreed releasing a statement ran wake this week's terrorist attack in boston. the umstansf this -- they say the opposite is true. we will show you as much of this as we can until the event gets underway.
>> i hope everybody can understand why the secretary napolitano will not be here. we will reschedule her . not mindeinstein will been mentioning, she was saying how proud we are of the way law enforcement has responded. of anistressed to hear officer being killed, just as we injuredll of the people or killed in the marathon.
what should have been a joyous was otherwise. them for to thank being here. , we havetisan proposal established a path to citizenship. the 11 million undocumented , andrants in this country it kept families apart for agricultural workers who are an essential part of our
community to provider nation's food supplies, it makes important changes to the vis is used by dairy farmers the it addressestry the needs of our law enforcement some of whom were afraid to come forward because of their status. it improves the treatment of asylum seekers. i appreciate the fact that we have four members of this committee who worked with others in forming a bipartisan consensus. i want to thank senator schumer
and senator there been for that. and senator feinstein, who has taught me more about immigration that i ever would have learned otherwise. . i do not want people to move out of the shadows and be stuck in some underclass. pathould not make people's to future status dependent on border conditions of which they have no control. i am disappointed we are not treating all families equally. we have to end discrimination against gay and lesbian families
facing immigration. these are all things we can discuss. i cannot help but to question whetbiio is the best use of r xpayer dollars. that each one of us can write what we want and each one of us may have a different bill. if it is a product of a very difficult concessions by all love -- all involved. now we are bringing to the public this immigration hearin
ths the we ve had their share. forill find the time secretary napolitano to come before the committee. thepe these will give public an opportunity to learn about it. willinly, everyone of us have plenty of time to analyze this bill before we start marking in up in may. just remember, immigration is a non sort -- ongoing resource of our spirits. the young students brought to this country by loving parents, the hard working men and women at plan by the rules in support of our farmers cannot technology companies, creating businesses of our own. our nation continues to benefit
, as it did in my wife's parents came here. we need to uphold the fundamental values of family. trade with our friends in the wonderful country of canada. agricultural workers support farmers and growers, many of whom are woven into the fabric of the agricultural community. the dysfunction of the city affects all of us. now is o time to fix it. it is our opportunity to do it. to act deliberately, but we have to last. we can talk about it, but we have to vote. millions of people. on this side, mr. chairman,
we understand why the secretary cannot be here and we feel she is doing exactly what she should be doing. we will have an opportunity to -- when things settle down, to question her. we also appreciate the opportunity to talk about immigration, particularly in light of all that is happening in massachusetts right now and over the last week. i know the people of boston and watertown are in everybody's thoughts this morning. we are tryingdersnd why these events have occurred, it is hard to understand there are people in this world you want to do americans harm. this is an opportunity to refocus on the issues at hand. that 30 years ago
this, april 19, 1983, committee held a hearing to discuss the immigration reform act. the author of the bill opened the meeting by presenting the bill and stating its purpose. its purpose, to control illegal immigration in the united states and to control illegal -- legalon immigration. he further stated, the first duty of a sovereign nation is to control its borders. we do not do that. index ". i suppose that is still the situation today. the bill we debated that day would provide legalization of millions of people already in the united states. on that day, senator simpson stated, we are attempting to ensure that this is a onetime only program.
the bill we are considering today, according to the bipartisan group, will ensure that this is a successful permit care reform to our immigration system that will not be revisited. areears he passed and we saying the sam thing, facing the same problems. we are proposing the same remedies and asking the american people to trust that we will get serious about enforcing immigration laws. i have to applaud like other people have for their commitment to reforming our broken system. time will tell if this bill solves that problem the way that their statement did to ensure that this is a successful permanent reform for immigration system said that we will not have to revisit this. debate, thehe
border security and economic opportunity anrati act, i will be asking whether this bill avoids the same mistakes and fixes our immigration system for the generation to come. we thought when that bill passed in 1986, that is what we did. we did everything in good faith, making it illegal to hire undocumented people for the first time. we did not look far enough ahead and we did not do it right, as we all know now. i made it clear that this bill needs to go through the committee process. i have argued that this bill on theen amendments floor. every member of the senate must have an opportunity to read and improve the bill. we aretunately, i think
off to a rough start from the standpoint that the majority is rushing to read and analyze the bill. it is just under 900 pages. there are some new concepts, most members of staff have not read the bill in its entirety before the hearing. we should be afforded enough time to understand and debate the bill. in 1983, the committee met on that day, the subcommittee held four hearings. thisr, we did the year before that, at the hearing held 16 committees and five consultations. 100 -- we havead experts that need to be heard on this bill. we need to hear from people who live and work along the border. how a new know
concept will be put into practice and most importantly, we need to hear from the cbo about the impacts the bill have on the taxpayers. this is not something to be -- we have to get it right, like we thought we got it right in 1986. otherwise the goal to solve the problem once and for all will not be met. given the events of this be, it is important for us to understand the loopholes in our immigration system. we do not know the immigration status of people who have terrorized the communities in massachusetts, when we find out, it will shed light on the weaknesses of our system. how can individuals evade authorities and plan such attacks on our soil? how can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the united states? how do we ensure that people who wish to do less harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws? we have a long road ahead of us.
we cannot tolerate anything less than a transparent and delivered part -- deliberative process to improve the bill. we thought we were doing that exactly that way in 1986, that we screwed up. we canno to screw up again. >> that is why we will make sure we will not even be voting on this until sometime next month. like all of our deliberations, and will be strained on the website. i understand that there are a lot of people watching. please go ahead. >> thank you mr. chairman.
i am a member of the comssion [indiscernible] i in your and my personal capacity. the commission was established to examine matters regarding race discrimination. the commission over the years has written and conducted hearings on aspects of immigration, including illegal immigration. recent such during occurred dealing with the specific issue of the effect of illegal immigration on the wage and employment levels of both -- of americans, specifically black americans. illegal immigration has a disproportionately negative effect on the employment wage
levels of low skilled americans. time are having a hard hearing you. >> it is important to remember that the witnesses at the hearing were experts on immigration who stand -- disband the ideological spectrum. every single witness a great that illegal immigration had a negative effect on employment opportunities and the wage levels of low-skilled americans, specifically back americans -- black amerins. concentrated in a lo skill labor markets, more likely to have only a high- school diploma. illegal immigrants concentrated in low-skilled labor markets, as likely to have low levels of educational achievement. these two groups achieve --
compete against one another. that competition is often most fierce in those areas of the economy where >> have been highly concentrated. -- blacks have been highly concentrated. not because low-skilled americans are unwilling to work, they are unwilling to work at the current rate rages and substandard benefits -- wages and sub standard benefits. much of the competition is concentrated in major metropolitan areas, such as new york, los angeles, chicago. but also rural areas.
the impact of illegal immigration on low-skilled workers is especially severe in today's stagnant economy. when the condition -- when the commission conducted its investigation originally, the unemployment rate was 12%. today, it is more than doubled, 24.6%. we havearly shows that an oversupply of low-skilled labor relative to demand. shows that 40% of the 18. percentage decline in the employment rates of black males is contributing to a legal immigration.
evidence indicated that in addition to employment levels, illegal immigration drove down wage levels. the federal reserveank atlanta show that illegal immigration was attributable to the nearly $960 per year decrease in the wage levels documented. hospitalityre and industry, $1,520. $960octors and lawyers, and not be a lot. -- may not be a lot. it goes towards growth trees, and rent, gasoline. recent history -- grow trees, rent, gasoline. groceries, rent, and gasoline.
that leads to that, to more americans depending upon the government. it swelled the ranks of the black unemployed and drives down the wages of those blacks who do have jobs. before the federal government grants lawful status, deliberation be given to the effect of that on the wage and employment levels of low skilled americans. thank you, mr. chairman. the full state will be made part of the record. -- statement will be made part of the record.
formerly director of the cbo 2005. george w. bush, 2003- i believe that is to me first met. it is good to have you here. >> thank you, chairman. >> all of this hearing is available on our video library. later in our program scheduled, we will taken next to the strategic and international studies. he is introducing taro aso , the foreign misr and deputy prime minister of japan to talk about japan's economy. ag on an. he comes now as the finance minister added time that is of remarkable significance. everyone has heard about the so- called economics.
there is no success without action. it will require this man who was going to put in place the structure to bring around this transformation. this is a big deal. it is important for japan, it is important for the united states. we need to learn and listen carefully. we were talking about this matter for that the prime minist'use aboutarrows. the finance minister talked about bazookas. been a marksmen and representing japan at the olympics. he did not use bazookas then, but he is using bazookas now. it is a good thing for japan. please welcome taro aso. [applause]
>> thank you. thank you, dr. greene. thank you for coming to join me. i am taro aso . i am bac t [laughter] when you say that each prime minister -- japanese prime minister spends only a year in office, you are talking about me. when you say that in japan politics is like a revolving me., you are talking about thank you very much. something not too bad year. you are looking at administration that has two
former prime ministers and three former party presidents. you must be envious because you cannot do anything like that in your present system. clinton as the vice- presidentf obama. ll start off by touching my view is something is wrong when you say the u.s. is end andn the giving japan is always on the receiving end. must stand tall as an equal and responsible allied to the u.s. hard as ase must walk
guardian of international goods, peace, prosperity, and democracy. thatas my grandfather's aspiration. -- japan'scurity security treaty, 1951 in san day,isco he wrote that one japan would work with the u.s. to maintainpartner the national order. 62 years later, that still holds. -- itmy belief hobbs that is my belief that japan has a noble responsibility to bring happiness and democracy in the world. that is why, ladies and
gentlemen, japan must regain its economic power. that is why we are working hard to turn around our economy. make no mistake, we are pushing it not only for the sake of economic growth, we are doing aat precisely to make japan reliable ally. in march, we said we will be negotiations.
last week, tokyo and washington reached an agreement about some of the issues we needed to solve. that we arech glad on the right track to enter the negotiations. it is about the economic continuation. it is also much more than th japan is still the second biggest democratic economy in the world. [laughter] , the americanher and japanese can make the world a much better place. the u.s. and japan bound mega -- can emerge as a
think about our combined size. it is really mega. for the purpose of growth, japan must be stronger. i will spend the next couple of minutes to tell you about the ne simple, and pln, straightforward. the government comes in with fiscal policies. introduces at's growth package, i
massive deregulation and other growth plans, putting in -- putting the growth in a sustainable orbit. that is it. -- by the way, he was an archery player in his college days. i was a skeet shooter. i called them bazookas. cheaper, butecome
only as a byproduct. ,o save the cheap yen is a gold it -- is a goal, you missed the point. is too much difficulty and too much persistent. .e have to use every means a shrinking japan could do only harm to the world. only a going japan would do good for the people in japan, for the people in america, and for the people in the world. that is what we are aiming to bring about. about are still in doubt what i say, it is probably because you have n
through deflationary. economic deflation. been let me tell you a little bit about what it is like. when the asset price bubble collapsed in the early 1990's. price index at the end --1990 -- 89 was about sorry, i made a mistake. at $39. to 7000 yen. in 1991. it became lower by 87%. yen to 13 yen.
had a negative equity, many companies also had negative equities. only in easing their balance sheets, companies were implicit in being -- paying back their debt. rather than investing in new ideas or products for future growth. they cos minimize, cutting wages. wanted no layoffs, so they chose to accept the pay cuts. valuelly, money gained relative to goods, growth slowed
because no one, except for the government, was willing to invest. cycle.ous deflation became very persistent. i must tell you is like slow motion death. nots early stage, it does seem so painful. cpi is also flat. does nothasing power decline. when youeady too late finally become aware that you are hostage and that you cannot
escape the vicious cycle. process,t is a slow deflation could bring no alarm bells. that is why deflation is much more harmful. what is to be done? why are economics necessary? before the december general election, we thought the most an important thing would be to get rid of deflationar. thought the economic landscape should be redrawn dramatically so that people would be willing to take risks. it was at that time the idea of
we made rokas -- campaign platform and pushed it hard during the campaign. the result was we won a landslide victory. a mandate, a political chapter strong enough to do all things that were a long time coming. we had done nothing other than voicing our will to do it. interestingly, the market started to respond.
it speaks volumes about how when portent it is to change people's -- how when printed is to change people's perception, outlook -- how important it is to change people's perception and outlook. that is a postwar history. must mention that japan isong t have succeeded in containing deflation. he published his general theory in 1936. prior to that, there was someone -- he was a six-
time finance minister and a one- time prime minister in the early 1920's -- early 1930's. doing exactly by whate are doing now. .t is a bold he also did its big and fast, shock and awe. if franklin roosevelt would say given him he had inspiration.
it encouraged me to think that among our predecessors, there we someone who admitted to wish to follow his footsteps. now back to the real genesis. the head of the i issued aan -- joint statement for the first time in japan's monetary history of january 8 this year. joint statement, the bank of japan introduced the inflation target.
it price stability target. the government pledged to run macroic and fiscal policies. the government should encourage and established sustainable fiscal strategy. what we would, or do from now on is all based on this joint statement. bazooka is first bold, monetary policy. i will not say more about it. you may just want to open your newspaper or magazine.
about it.elling governor of the bank of japan, big and fast, shock and awe. he is a goodad, communicator. the centralonnected banking community. let me go want to tell you more about the second bazooka. that is a fiscal policy. we are not making -- it does not
abide to the japanese -- applied to the japanese situation. here in the u.s., conservatism is about smaller government and tax reductions. the situation in japan is more complex. when the private sector cannot spend and only save under the government must be the spender of last resort. thinking that way, we put forth a large scale budget for the fiscal year of 2012. public works are also important. not only important, they are vital. more and do it bridge, roads, and
at any given time, they fall apart. exactly the have same problems in the 1980's. i would like you to remember what people said about the golden gate bridge and the hoover dam and so on. manyconstructed in 1930's, people called them lavish and extravagant. however, more than 50 years after its creation, the hoover dam continues to do more than the millions of visitors a year.
las vegas would have been a different place, i think. without the golden gate bridge, the tourist economy in san francisco would have been much smaller, i am sure. we are investing in our future when we do public works. that is my definition for public i also believe that our tax policies should play a bigger role. prices are still extremely low. -- capitales investments remain. as a result of deflation. my ministry introduced a new
arrangement, and another new arrangement if you buy a new your domestic business expansion. you get tax deductions. more in research and development, you get your taxes reduced. ,urthermore, if you hire more you can get a tax benefit. what we do in order to -- japanese economy experts -- exports only 11-13% of gdp. bigger than that
for the u.s. or brazil may be, but smaller done all the rest -- smaller than all the rest. we are the number 3 nation. china, about 25%. , that isanother power the power of persuasion. we are lucky, we have meant a ole s ceos.
they should remember their patriotic and hire more or pay more to their employees. for the first time in many years, an increasing number of companies are willing to pay more. however, getting rid of deflation, cannot warrant long-lasting. we can lead people's expectations to sustainable economic growth. we must commit to downside risk. inflation without loss, interest rates.
let me understand one by one. now haveume that you rising c.p.i. your economy is not growing. that is bad inflation. people should stop this. azooka, ite third should come into play. is enhancementka policies. by, i amard to come not saying we can do it easily. takes us only a look in the mirror to see who we are and then we realize we can do more.
i know i sound like an leadist, i believe that to your nation come at you had better be an optimist rather than a pessimist. -- both ofn common us are believers in japan's resources. an optimistic offer, high-speed bullet train. with anet train runs average delay time of 30 seconds.
sense and its launch in 1964, -- since its launch in 1964, no .uman injuries which can connect new york and washington, d.c., in 40 minutes. in my part of the world, from singapore, hong kong, china japanese rice, japanese sake are in high demand. theve said all the time to farmers in japan that they can
make a giant export industry. enchia -- it has become a fr now. and so on.pop music, some of you may recall a foreign minister, i introduced it to be the creators. furthermore, some of the companies in japan are amazing. my favorite wine is in tokyo. -- one is in tokyo. both are total monopolies.
company -- you do not feel any pain. how many employees are there? 26, including the president and his wife. [laughter] amazing. only in japan do you have family whose roots date back to 70 years ago. challenge for government is this, to let's go. we should simply let the companies shine themselves.
of ourst be the course third bazooka. we have set up an expert group, they will give us a proposal about the deregulation, it innovation. they areing forward likely to be bold, something that will dramatically change. to prevent bad inflation from taking shape. the pursuit of old policies is most important. what about the bad industries?
pursuevident that if we only bald monetary easing of without putting our -- bold monetary easing without putting our fiscal house in order, government debt accedes to 200% of gdp.xceeds no one will benefit from that, and needless to say. however, we should not be overly anxious. there are only a handful of countries that can fund the entire government in their own currencies.
-- japanhe country'ies can issue bonds in its own currency. other such countries including and the united states of america. countries in the whole world. all, to lay out a credible roadmap for reducing the debt. confidenceall, win from the market.
the agreement has become a bill. the bill enables the government 8%,aise the rate from 5% to and an 8% to 10%. the second in october 2015. no one wants to see tax rates becoming higher. has become very unpopular for politicians. it has made it possible for the parliament to pass that bill.
i am proud of it. quantitative the easing -- quantitative easing was made on one condition. the government must pursue the fiscal prudence, that is what we promised in a joint statement i mentioned earlier. within the next two years, the bank of japan will buy a huge amount of government bonds. the market must become -- to see whether or not the government is committed to improving its fiscal situation. prudence is ascal
-- that we need to start tackling now, rather than later. based on the provision, incomprehension tax reform act -- comprehension tax reform act. to put the growth of the government expenditure, previously at the toronto g-20 othergs, together with member nations.
we aim at achieving balance by 2020. facilitate plans by the middle of this year. should take a deep -- for the economy t.c. sustainable growth. -- to seek civil rights. -- sustainable growth. that the say only a few words about what kind of country japan ought to be. japan must be a placeherereward.
japan must be a place where we are -- where risk takers can be given opportunities, not just once but many times. ministerse ex-prime represent the chance for a second coming in japan. -- n must be a place where [indiscernible] put in place full animation. japan is on the cutting edge of new medical technogy. cite what a nobel prize winner said, japan is a country that is the closest to bringing the stem cell technology to the bedside.
that is about it. ladies and gentlemen, once again, we are doing all that, not only for the sake of the ournese, but also to make alliance stronger. at the end of the day, the u.s. is the biggest democratic theomy, and japan is still second. together we can do a lot, for the sky is the limit. a key very much for your ti thanyo [applause] thank you. we will now take some questions. 25 years ago, about this month i
went to work in the japanese diet, and my boss and then asks a young rising start to make sure i did not get into any trouble. he failed. was correctly informed he was a rising star, and i was not alone a skeet-shooting -- but is a good thing for japan that he is on the job. the first question about the third bazooka -- i know you are waiting a few months. isn't it happening in japan in july? i know you are waiting until after the election, also gathering of the use of experts, but could you say more about your personal philosophy or principles that would guide the third bazooka, long-term growth stragy?
the prime minister also mentioned women's empowerment, which could add considerable sustain economic growth. what are some of the princip you think about for that third bazooka? >> even though [indiscernible] japanese]in >> part of this question might be better addressed to someone other than myself. i hope you can wait for another few months and hear directly from the people who are responsible f-- the ideas right,
and you'lle most accurate answer from them. allow me to answer the question. japanese]ng in
>> at this moment people are coming up with a waterfall ideas, at it has to do with the regulation or reform, and let me focus on medical care at the moment. in japan there is already a production going on for producing nursing care robots, because we already have the technology to think something in their minds, it would drive the robots on and what ever direction they would like to see
them move. that type of technology has been developed. it is applied to the use for the nursing care robots. unfortunately at this moment, we have a ministry, ministry of health and labor and welfare, who knows nothing about the development assistance. trying to apply dictly the pharmaceutical sysed dm to en nofhesing care robots. many times over, clinical trials, experience, it has to be performed so by at the time approval is given, robots will become outdated. this is the way to go, so we will introduce assistance to overcome this. [speaking in japanese] [
>> a robot is one example, add another example can be found in the water supply system. in the world come countries
apart from japan having the private companies toun their systems, but in japan it belongs toheof information and internal affairs and communications. it is their exclusive area. japan is a country which is known for being successful in recovering the 99.99% of the water charges, so most of them and those systems are run by either the state or the municipalities. we hope we can privatize these areas ourselves. it is like a facility, where the public sector can construct schools, but we can get the private sector to run these facilities. >> thank you. we have microphones and nazi set and night sample matthew set an
by identifying himself. i question, but i want to comment on your answer. i think it was helpful that your specific in the answer about the growth strategy, and i appreciate that. famousy cite the most is anan manga, there installment in peanuts where charlie brown faces a busy and she is holding a football and encouraging him to kick a football, and he wants to kick a football, but doubts she will hold it. she thinks he will take it away because every year he takes it away and he ends up on his back. a lot of us in washington are like charlie brown, we want to believe, but there have ces in the e growth tschida jay has not
been specific or has not been carried through. everyone is looking forward to this growth strategy and the specific elements that are credible and get carried through on. that is my comment. the question about the first arab. can you give more flavor of the discussion today in the g-20 about monetary stimulus, but just in japan, but in other advanced economies and the impact of that on global markets and whether there was significant concern about that issue and any agreement to address monetary stimulus. [speaking in japanese]
>>, with regard to this issue, mr. de antedate the jeep-20 meetings have been held. previous meeting was held in
february and the second one has been helped us now in washington. question, and the of course i want to know about the impact of the policy of banks in japan because the interest rate on the gdp is at is at .5%. >> [speaking in japanese]
>> when we are talking about the three basic paris, the primary aim of each is to lift the japanese economy out from the deflationary it -- deflationary recession. that is the priority for us. if the yen mig depreciate and this is only a mere byproduct of what we expect, these are the lines that we have been saying to people who want to know more about -- and more or less the understanding has been gained. japanese] in the jointead out
communique and perhaps i can gain your understanding on this. may i read them out of >> we have agreed that while progress has been made, action required to make growth strong, sustainable, and balanced, some countries have taken steps to stimulate activity since met in moscow. in particular, japan's recent policy actions are intended to stop deflation and support domestic demand. in japanese]
>> the portions i have just read out to you are a response, which may answer your question, which might have contained doubts about our mission. rthu >> aycock. economy atan's georgetown. you are making the subject interesting again. one of the interesting problems you face and i do not envy you is he said the fiscal consolidation, the consumption tax will go up next year and a fallen year, and you are aware it will take a big hit on consumption on income. this will have a negative impact on the economy, and i wonder how you are balancing these issues of fiscal consolidation and the band. [speaking in japanese]
>> i think you have hit on the most important point, because whenever we may try to increase the taxes come it is not necessarily result in increasing the revenue. we have known the actual examples that could happen in the past, many numbers. [speaking in japanese]
>> back in 1997 when the consumption tax was raised, we thought by doing this we will receive the increase in the tax
revenue by five trillion yen. however, it turned out to be that as a result of the tax increase we have dampened the consumption by is roles, and the economy has gotten worse. it used to be in 1997 that the total tax revenue raised from the corporate tax, income tax, and the consumption tax was 41 trillion yen, but in the following year, it was reduced down to 37 trillion yen. we hope it would add another five trillion yen to the retina. instead we lost four trillion yen. >> speaking in ja
artyast year the ruling was able to strike an agreement, 18 provisionse
included. have d.c. first of all to pick up the economy, otherwise there is no way the consumption tax would take place. whether to do it will be decided by october. if we end up having picked up an economy by then, we can raise the tax, but if it does not look that well then, the timing of the raising of the tax will be deferred to a later date. i am sure in this kind of response we have been seriously considering the implications of the tax increase trade you asked me if i could make a decision right now to say definitely that taxation will be raised, stage we cannot say that definitely. we have to allow more time to make sure that the economy will really get better. then the judgment will be made
definitely. >> have time for a short question. in the middle here. i'm a student at georgetown. the key for speaking today. you mentioned the trans-pacific partnership as a means for economic growth. i'm wondering about agricultural pressures will influence negotiations going forward. >> [indiscernible] [speaking in japanese]
>> i know it initially started with an ideal that all taxes would be elinated in the case of the united states, look at the sugar cane. people realized 100% that the producers in the southern part of the nine states would go down completely due to mexico. japanese]ng in >> look at the beef. andeef is realized at 100%,
coere will be no more ft in the united states. that is totally inconceivable. [speaking in japanese] >> in the country as a sensitive issue to themselves. united states has been requesting japan to do something in the automotive area, because japanese tires -- but the united states would like to maiain that 25% tax rates on trucks, and this is a condition that the u.s. has asked us to keep.
>> [speaking in japanese]
agriculturalto the projects offered by japan, we have to decide which tariffs should be imposed on which items. it is decided eventually that some items would qualify for a subsidy. but there is another side to the agrilook at the strawberries
produced by japan. to suggest an ordinary strawberry, but one piece of a strawberry can createhe price ofece. for us, we hesitate if we look at one package of strawberries price is00 yen, it the different, then it can command a spectacularly high price. one piece of strawberries will be enjoyed much more in the country in the war. farmers will have a way to make a profit out of the products they make. it all depends on what products you are talking about. this is an area that definitely is considered. in case of rice of well, thanks to the global warming, the hokkaido, the northernmost island, is enjoying the benefits
as the result of able to grow and much more tasty rice. in thet, but i don't produce rice that was known for -- in the past, the island of hokkaido was known to produce an inferior type of rice. before that, hokkaido produced rice that had been given a gold price. why could prove in hokkaido, you can have a much larger paddy fi eld. is larger and n in this way even rice could claim a much higher competitiveness. because of the economic change, rice is really shifting
northward much more, so i think the areas in the south will be shifting their crops to much likein the first area, strawberries, for example. this is a flow that i see. i am not an expert on the agriculture, but since i live in the southern part of japan, when i look around the area around the residence, i can feel that changes are coming. emma thank you for a therehensive, concrete, and candida presentation. we would appre it if you could give the minister a chance to get to the airport and get on to their next appointment. we will have the copiesf the speech up front, and on our website, but join me in expressing our appreciation. [applause]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> an update from boston's swat teams. they are in command of streets in the boston area for the hunt of the surviving best -- boston
marathon bombing suspect. officials and family members identified the suspect as 19- year-old dzhokhar tsarnaev. he is still at large print his brother tamerlan was killed in the shootout last night. new york to boston changed -- trains have been held and not working at this hour, as the air isn't lockdown and continues to be. as news updates at become available, wwill have those for you on the c-span that marks. senator lindsey graham treating about the suspect. if captured, i hope the administration will continue -- consider holding the suspect as an enemy combatant for intelligence-gathering purposes. over at the white house the president has received a couple of briefings today on the situation. one just wrapped up by certain while the. this is an earlier briefing.
politico writes the president spoke this afternoon to deval patrick and thomas menino, as he did it to be briefed on developments creek he was briefed before 4:00 p. ts afternoon according to an assistant at the white house. the president expressed his condolences for t two polic officers kille overnight in his conversations with the governor and boston mayor barry at the earlier briefing, john kerry was also in attendance, and ahead of that, he had held a short briefing with reporters and the mexican foreign minister, and at the start of that briefing, that george briefing he spoke briefly as well about the situation in boston. here is what he had to say. say as a father and grandfather, my thoughts are of course in my home town right now, boston, where events are stilloldi and the entire city is on lockdown.
we continue to learn more every moment about the terror attack onand the pursuit of justice that is following i it is week we have bent and a direct confrontation with evil. and i want to congratulate and thank all allow a law- enforcement authorities for the extraordinary job they have been doing on behalf of our citizens. in the past few days we have seen the best and the worst. all of usbest that really want to focus on. like everyone, we'll keep watching and we will await word from law enforcement officers before commenting further. by makington marathon up this morning at a judiciary hearing on a plan to overhaul th'anonpr
s. another senator said all the facts about the bombing are not known and is too early to link the attack to immigration law. >> making committee can come to order, please. i apologize for the delay. as you know there is a great in massachusetts. i hope everybody can well therstand why the secretary anula tunnel will not be here, we will reschedule her testimony.
i was just talking to senator feinstein, but she was saying and i totally agree how proud we are of the way law enforcement has responded. i am distressed of an officer being killed and critically wounded, just as we are of all the people who were injured or killed from the marathon. it suld have been a joyous, joyous occasion, as most marathons are, prospectives and participants and otherwise and i want to thank dr. holtz-eakin and
mr. cassano for being here and we'll go forward. the bipartisan proposal we have established citizenship, the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, it addresses the current immigration system, backlogs that have kept families apart really for decades, and drmehthese children to the country through no fault of their own, the agriculture workers were essential to part of our communities and worked so hard to provide our nation's food supplies, and make important changes to the visas used by dairy farmers, the tourism, by immigrant, investors, or make investments in our communities. it addresses the needs of our law enforcement community, requires the help of immigrants who witness crime or victims of domestic
violence, some of whom are now afraid to come forward because of their status, it improves the treatment of refugees as asylum seekers, ands united states remains the beacon of the world as it was to my paternal parents and paternal grade parents, and i appreciate the fact that we ha four members of this committee who worked with others in forming a bipartisan consensus, and i thank senator schumer and senator durbin, senator graham and senator plate for that. and of course, senator feinstein, who has probably taught me more about immigration than i ever would have learned otherwise.
and the bill includes what some are calling triggers, i'm concerned they could long delay green cards for those atto make full and contributing participants in our society. i do not want people to move out of the shadows, but then be struck in -- stuck in some underclass, just as we should not fault dreamers for bringing children, should not make states and futures dependent on border conditions on which they have no control and i'm disappointed we're not treating families all equally. i abhor the discrimination that gay and lesbian families face, i'm concerned about the visa changes for siblings, the lack of priority for how the points base visa system works in practice. these are all things we can discuss. i can't help but question whether spending millions more in defense from united states to mexico is really the best use of our tax dollars, but i do know that each one of us can write what we want, and each of us
may have a different bill. ve a bill that's a product of compromise, very difficult concessions by all involved, and i mentioned senator schumer and senator schumer, durbin, graham, and plate, but also, senator feinstein and senator mccain, senator menendez, senator rubio, senator bennett, all worked on this. so now we're bringing to the public this immigration hearing. it's the fourth we've had this year. we will hold hearings on monday. we will find time for secretary napolitano to come before the committee and discuss that with senator grassley. and so i hope these will give
the public an opportunity to learn about it. certainly, every one of us loves to want to say we -- every one of us will have plenty of time to analyze this bill before we actually start marking it up in may. but just remember, immigration is an ongoing source of renewal of our spirit, our creativity, and also, our economic strength. young students brought to this country by loving parents seeking a better life, hard working men and women who play by the rules supporting our farmers, and innovating for our technology companies, or creating businesses of their own. our nation continues to ntit did when my parents came here. we need to uphold the fundamental values of family, hard work, and fairness. in vermont, immigration has promoted cultural riches, refugee resettlement, student exchange. economic development to the five regional senate programs, tourism, and trade with our friends, in that
wonderful country of canada. foreign agricultural workers support vermont farmers and growers, many of whom become part of families, woven into the fabric of vermont's agricultural community as they have in so many other states. the dysfunction of the system affects all of us. now is our time to fix it. this is our opportunity to do it. act deliberately, but we have to act. we can talk about it, but eventually, we have to vote. millions of people. millions of americans are depending upon us. senator grassley. >> yes. on this side, mr. chairman, we understand why the secretary can't be here and we feel she is doing exactly what she should be doing, and we'll have an opportunity, when things settle down, to question her. and we also appreciate the opportunity to talk about immigration, particularly in
light of all that's happening in massachusetts right now and over the last week. i know that the people of boston and watertown are in everybody's thoughts this morning. reertryi unde whyhese events have occurred. it's hard to understand that there are people in this world that want to do americans harm, so this hearing is an opportunity to refocus on the issues at hand and the importance of remaining vigilant in securing our homeland. we appreciate the exactly 30 years ago today, april 19th, 1983, this committee held a hearing to discuss the immigration reform and control act. senator simpson, the author of that bill, opened the meeting by presenting the bill and stating its purpose, quote, its purpose, a very simple one: to control illegal immigration in the united states and to control legal immigration without
lamenting immediately family reunification, end of quote. but he furth stated, quote, thrst du of a sovereign nation is to control its borders. we do not do that. end of quote. and i suppose that's still the situation today. the bill, we debated that day, would provide legalization of millions of people already in the united states. on that day, senator simpson stated further, quote, we're attempting to assure that this is a one-time-only program. end of quote. the bill we're considering today, according to the bipartisan group of eight senators who crafted it will, quote, ensure that this is a successful, permanent reform to our immigration system that will not be revisited, end of quote. now, 30 years have passed and we're saying the same thing, facing the same problems. w're pposing the same
remedi ndamerican people to trust that we will get serious about enforcing our immigration laws. so let me be clear. i have to applaud, like other people have, the group of eight senators for their commitment to reforming our broken immigration system. time will tell if this bill solves that problem the way that their statement did to ensure that this is a successful, permanent reform to our immigration system so that we will not have to revisit it. so i quoted that twice now. throughout the debate, s444, the border security economic opportunity and immigration modernization act, i will be asking whether this bill avoids the same mistakes and truly fixes our immigration sy fioto come. because we thought when that bill passed in 1986, that's what we did. we did everything in good
faith, shutting off the magnet to bring people to this country by making it illegal to hire illegal, undocumented people for the first time, but we didn't look far enough ahead, and we didn't do it right, as we all know now. i've made it clear that this bill needs to go through the committee process, and it will. i have argued that this bill must be open to amendments during consideration in committee on the floor, and we've been told that it will. every member of the senate must have an opportunity to read, analyze and apove the bill and the schedule will permit that. unfortunately, i think that we're kind of off to a rough start from the standpoint that the majority is rationed to read and analyze the bill. it's just under 900 pages, and tactile on important issues. there are new concepts. most members of staff on the committee have not read of bill in its entirety before this hearing. certainly we should be afrd eugh tio understand and debate the
bill and we've been assured we will. in 1983 before the judiciary committee met on that day, the subcommittee on immigration held four hearings before it reported the bill to the full committee. this year, the year before that, the committee held 16 hearings, and five consultations. prior to may 1982, markup of the same bill, the committee had 100 hours of hearings and 300 witnesses. we have expert that is need to be heard on this bill. we need to hear from peopl border.e and work along the we need to understand how changes in our visa program will affect businesses and american workers. we need to know how new concepts will be put into practice. and most importantly, we need to hear from the congressional budget office about the impact the bill will have on the taxpayers. this is not something to be rifed. we have to get it right, like we thought we got it right in 1996. 1986.
otherwise the goals of the bipartisan group to solve the problem once and for all will not be met. and given the events of this week, it's important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system. while we don't yet know the immigration status of people who have terrorized the communities in massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system. how can individuals evade authority and plan such attacks on our soil, how can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the united states, how do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us. we have a long road ahead of us, to pass legislation to reform our immigration system. we cannot tolerate anything less than a transparent and deliberative process to improve the bill because we thought we were doing that exactly, that way, in 1986, but we screwed up, and we can't afford to screw up again. thank you. >> and with that, which is why we're going to make sure
we are going to be voting on this sometime in the next month, and we will have it open, and like all our deliberations, it will be streamed on our website and i understand from the i.t. people -- we will hire a law firm, benzick, freelander, copeland? please, go ahead. >> [inaudible] >> is your microphone on? >> thank you mr. chairman, senator grassley, members of the committee. i'm a member of the civil rights and i'm here in my personal capacity. civil rights was established -- >> he needs a microphone. >> this was established in the 1957, to among other things examine matters related to denials of
protection and race and discrimination and because immigration often implicates matters pertaining to national origin and discrimination, the commission over the years has regularly conducted hearings on aspects of immigration including illegal immigration. the most recent such hearing occurred dealing with the specific issue of the effect of illegal immigration on the wage and employment levels of americans, specifically black americans and the evidence produced at that hearing showed that illegal immigration a disproportionately negative effect on employment and wage levels of low skilled americans, specifically black americans. >> mr. chairman, we have a hard time hearing. if you can get that a little closer. it's important to remember that witnesses at the hearing were witnesses that spanned the ideological spectrum. despite differences to policy every witness agreed that illegal immigration had a demonstrably bad effect on americans, specifically black americans, and the evidence as to why this impacts black
americans is quite basic. black americans, specifically black males or disproportionately, concentrated in the low skill labor market, disproportionately more likely to have only a high school diploma, like lies illegal immigrants disproportionately, concentrated in the low skill labor market, disproportionately likely to have low levels of educational achievement, and these two groups compete
against one another in the low skill labor market. that competition is often most fierce in those areas of the economy where blacks have historically been highly concentrated and blacks frequently lose out on that competition, crowded out by illegal immigrants who, employers for various reasons prefer, as shown by professor vernon bheornell school of inabrelations, it's ne black americans or low skilled americans are unwilling to work, it's that they're unwilling to work at sometimes the cut rate wages and substandard benefits tendered to illegal immigrants, and highly unlikely to complain to the division of labor, the eeoc, or osha. much of the competition is concentrated in major metropolitan areas such as new york, los angeles, chicago, but also, in rural areas now, and in southeast states such as georgia, north carolina, virginia. the impact of illegal immigration on low skilled workers is significant in our stagnant economy. the unemployment rate for blacks without a high school diploma was 12 percent, today, it's more than dole
now, that clearly shows that we have an oversupply of low skilled labor relative to that is hundreds of thousands to -- of black ups that cannot support families on their own dime. the evidence indicated in addition to the pressing employment levels, illegal immigration drove down wage levels. studies by the federal reserve bank of a plant that showed illegal immigration and the spike was attributable to the nearly $960 per year to decrease in the wage levels of documented
georgians. in the leisure and hospitality industry, it was $1,520. for doctors and lawyers, it m be a lot, but as the president observed, $80 a month is significant for months -- most families. recent history shows that grant of lawful status further increases the influx of illegal immigrants, forcing out those skilled labor and thereby depressing the wage and employment levels of those americans. in addition to that, that necessarily leads to more americans depending on the government for subsistence. it drives down the wages of those blacks who have jobs. thesmitt that before
federal government grants waffle statusdue deliberation be given to the effect of that grant on the wage and ment levels of low-skilled americans. the grant of status is not without cost to the american worker. thank you, mr. chairman. witnesses, a post statement will be made part of the record. tz-eakin is the president of the american action for, formerly director of the congressional budget under george of the bush. please go ahead. >> thank you. it is a privilege to be here today. i stement for the record.
let d i look forward to answerig questions. the first point is that the immigration reform bill before you has many aspects. there are important security considerations. there are legal issues which we have to resolve, but at its core, it represents an economic policy opportunity. it isit is an opportunity for the united states to dictate the evolution of its future population, and as i emphasized in my testimony, in the absence of immigration, low fertility rates means that the population declines and it will dictate the labor force participation and effort exerted in our economy. it will have strong influences on the entrepreneurship and small business creation. the evidence is that new immigrants in the united states both work more, the labor force participation rates are higher, and have small businesses at a hire rate. as a result it will increase the productivity growth in the u.s. economy, the fundamental building block of
higher standards of giving and generate larger economic growth numbers than we've seen in recent years. i've done estimates that benchmark reform suggests you could have as much as nearly a full percentage point faster growth over 10 years and associated with that would be something that i think every member of this committee would be quite pleased to see, that is less budgetary pressure, faster growth reduces using cbo rules of thumb, deficits by about 2 1/2 trillion dollars over 10 years, and that's clearly a benefit that we ought to think about when we thk about immigration reform and not rely on those effoich rts whnore economic growth. and i think that the u.s. is out of step with its economic competitors in that it does not use immigration policy as a tool of economic policy, under 10 percent of immigration into the u.s. is for economic purposes. this bill makes important changes to the visa system, si them more on economic considerations and represents a step toward using a policy mix that is closer to other industrialized countries.
a legitimate concern in all of this is what will happen to the federal budget. it's a concern that i have been close to for a long, long time. and i think a good way to think about the budgetary implications is to start with the last piece of comprehensive reform legislation that congress looked at in 2007. the cbo did have the opportunity at the time to put out a score. that score indicated that if you look at the balance between spending and revenues, it would, over 10 years, increase deficits by about $18 billion. and $18 billion doesn't sound like a lot now, in the context of trillion dollars deficits, year after year, but i think that there are two things to remember about that $18 billion: since that time, many of the things that were policy objectives, border security and e verify system and other pieces of the immigration infrastructure, there has been spending on that, about half of what the cbo needed has happened.
so those policy objectives may be cheaper and generate less in the way of spending. the second thing that's happened has been that cbo did not use dynamic scoring. it did not take into account the potential economic growth effects that would change the impacts entirely. the la p oat's happened, and something i'm sure we'll have a chance to talk about, is since that score, the congress has passed, and president signed, the affordable care act, a large entitlement program in the united states, and my reading of this legislation is there's a bipartisan commitment that those who have become registered, provisional immigrants, here illegally, would not be eligible for benefits, certainly not for 10 years, realistically not for 15, so there will not ab budgetary impact over that horizon. over the longer term, i think there's something that the congress should keep an eye on in terms of the budgetary outlook and i'd be happy to discuss with you the impact of this bill in that regard. but as i said before, i think
but as i said before, i think the primctive should be to make sure that when the many policy objectives are put on the table, economics does not g l the shuffle. this is a central tool to economic policy. this is an opportunity for us to improve on our growth record which has not been good. and i look forward for the chance to answer the questions they might have about that. thank you. >> thank you very much. you know, on the economics, you hear about low wage -- people may be hurt by this. it's my experience that you have places where there's a large number of immigrants or undocumented that companies will show up and say here, we're going to pay you a flat rate for work for the day, you can't complain about it, you're not going to get any b'ls going to do any withholding to the government. doesn't that pretty well undercut hiring somebody,
even somebody at minimum wage, but doing it legally? >> i think the impact of immigration on low skill employment wages is a really important issue and i'm glad it was raised in the opening statements. let me separate into two pieces. the first is illegal immigrants in the united states, there, i think if you look at the bill, there are two features that are important to think about. one, it would put those workers on a level, legal playing field with u.s. workers, same workplace protection, same wage laws, thus changing that dynamic considerably. second is this is intended to cut off future illegal immigration. the border security, e verify, entry-exit visa triggers are all designed to do that. that changes whatever you may is oat. for immigration in general, mr. chairman, i want to just make sure that people
understand, the evidence is not as it was characterized. there is good reason to believe that immigration raises the wages of american workers, that they are complements to american workers, and i would emphasize two things. number one, if we're worried about the ability of low skilled americans to earn a wage, we should fix the low skill problem. that's the problem. it's not immigration. it's low skills. and if you think the competition begins when someone arrives in the united states, you're mistaken. we are competing with those workers now wherever they may be. >> you know, it's interesting, your testimony mentioned the, quote, immigration policy is economic policy. >> yes. you talked about the entrepreneurial vigor. i visited these companies, i know the founders of most of them. between 25 percent of our highest growth companies, between 1990-2005, including intel, google, yahoo, ebay, employ hundreds of thousands
of people a year in the united states, there are pretty good wages, they were begun by immigrants. in fact, 40 percent of the companies in the 2010 fortune 500 were started by immigrants and their children. that's something we should be thinking about. >> i would hope so. i mean, the evidence is quite clear on the capacity of immigration to bring entrepreneurship to the u.s. >> limited time here, but you released this analysis, including immigration reform with the proposal here, can boost the american economy by as much as one percentage point a year over the coming decade and reduce the deficit by as much as 2 1/2 trillion dollars. obviously, every one of us wrestle with budgets and deficits, it kind of perks up -- gives us our attention.
do you want to elaborate on that a little bit? >> i guess i would say a couple of things. first, arriving at that estimate is a matter of arithmetic, not particular ingenuity. economic growth comes from growth in people, and their productivity. and immigration controls both the size of the labor force work more and participate at higher rates than the native-born, you get labor force growth. as you've mentioned, we often get small businesses and entrepreneurs, which raise the productivity of those workers, and there are benefits to faster overall economic growth in spreading innovation through the economy and thus raising productivity further. my estimates simply look at increases in immigration and follow the research, literature and rules of thumb for the impacts on gdp and on the budget. it's not magic. it's just arithmetic. i will say that it's important to recognize, i didn't tailor that estimate to 2013, '14, '15.
this bill looks like it will take some time to pass and implement, and that's fair. so you want to think of that as once you get up and running, what will the next 10 years look like. >> in fact, your testimony, you reference immigration legislation considered back in 2007. many of us were here at the time. some were concerned about the cost. but you say, quote, it is not 2007 anymore. it is important to consider what has happened since then to get a sense about the relevant budgetary effect that is have changed. you can elaborate on that, sir? >> as i said, i think the key spending aspects have changed in two ways. on the discretionary side, many of the policy objectives of that legislation, border security, e verification, there has been expenditure on those systems, and so not all of the spending needs to be done, so it should be relatively cheaper. on the mandatory spending side, as i mentioned, the key change has been the passing of the affordable care act. the drafters of the it oks to me, taken of us
great bipartisan care to ensure that for the next 10-15 years. that doesn't impinge on the budgetary cost to this legislation. >> thank you very much. senator grassley. >> thanks both of you as witnesses. first question to both of since we have a generation, very generous immigration system, even though it has problems, i've always argued that we must enhance and expand legal avenues for people who wish to live and work here. this bill makes many changes in those legal programs and increases work permits and green cards. so my question to both of you is do either of you have an estimate on how the legal immigration levels will increase if we pass this bill? >> i don't have an estimate myself but i will say this. responding to something doug said, and i respect his
opinion on these issues, there is a significant problem with respect to regularization. whether or not the senate wants to do so or not, it's not going to help the employment levels of americans currently. i think e verify is a good idea. outstanding. making sure that all workers are subject to the same legal requirements. outstanding idea. the problem is when you regularize 11 million people, the tiny advantage that current americans have in such competition evaporates. if everyone is subject to the same set of rules, then formerly illegal immigrants will be on the same it's not going to advantage illed workers here. we have -- 62 percent in the black community and certain demographics, one out of two men is working. and despite what some may say, that illegal immigration
or immigration period doesn't have any impact, i resort back to one of my other incarnations as a member of the national labor relations board and practicing labor relations law, it is palpable, the competition that is driven out by illegal immigration. you talk to minority contractors, businessmen, they will tell you, we cannot compete, and if these individuals are now regularized, in one fell swoop, the small advantage disappears. >> do you have a number for me dr. holtz-eakin? >> it looks to be 250,000, maybe north of that, depending upon the expansions, but i would be happy to get back to the more precise estimate as we become more comfortable with it. >> i'm going to ask you, dr. holtz-eakin, a question that deals with dynamic scoring, your use of it. i know you believe in it, i believe in it, but cbo only
scores steady scoring. and we also had a vote on the budget bill, where 48 democrats in the senate voted against dynamic scoring. so your projection regarding the economic benefits of immigration reform are based thascoring. fmecbdireor, whose cbo scores include dynamic economic impact for policy changes, and would they use dynamic scoring in the case of elaborating on this bill, -- >> it's good to have this topic, this discussion with you again. i have lot of scars from the previous incarnations. no, cbo does not. i've been yelled at many times over that. my point is that simply, when you get a cbo score which won't include those effects, recognize it's in that regard and know that there are benefits being counted in the
impact of the legislation. >> if dynamic scoring should be used to measure economic f imgration reform, surely, also, major -- measure dynamic economic benefits of lower rates of taxation as well. you usually agree t >> i do sir. >> but i'm trying to point out here that you can't have it both ways. maybe they're going to show that this is very positive from the standpoint of the economy, if you use dynamic scoring, but if you use static scoring, it's not going to come out so well. i have a question for our witness. you said this in your statement, so it's just a case of elaboration. the obvious question is whether there are sufficient jobs in low skill labor markets for both african-americans and illegal
immigrants. the answer is no, end of quote. >> that's exactly right. as i indicated just previously, we have a labor participation rate that is at historic lows. we have an abundant supply of low illelabor waitr . and it appears as if what we will do by regularizing a significant cohort, millions of individuals, is leap frogging those individuals. we've got millions upon millions of americans, not just black americans, but millions upon millions who don't have a job right now, and i think it's a good idea to reform the immigration system but due regard must be given to the fact that we have an overabundance people who are not working today. if you take a look at the various rates, we are at rates we haven't seen in 75, 80 years. it's astonishing. if we have regularization of a greater pool of individuals who coeton one by one y, those individlsre here
t going e single jobs. they don't have the resources, skill sets, to compete on the same level. >> since my time is up, i would simply make a statement about e verify, because i'm the author of e verify, and they said to put my provisions in this bill. i haven't checked that closely yet. but i think it takes -- it gives five years to put it into effect, and i hope that somebody on the panel will be able to say if that's soon enough or if it can be done sooner. >> thank you. >> i'm glad to see so many here. we're going to -- as i tried to do, we're going to keep on schedule, and i will yield now to senator feinstein. i have to take a phone call out back.
so i will also hand her the gavel, and i should be back in a few minutes. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i want to use my time to briefly speak about the bill that -- the part of the bill that i had something to do with. first of all, i want to congratulate senator schumer and others that worked on crafting the big bill. but i want to point out to everyone, and this is the first time i've had a chance to do this, that agriculture in this industry and it is in the main served by undocumented immigrants, ople who become very d t wk at they do do. one of the things that' has been inclined to a lot of us, has gone outside of thecotr. some of it has been had to curtail activities because they have not been able to attract an american work force. i want particularly to thank senator hatch and his staff, matt sungrid, who worked on this, along with senator
rubio, his staff, enrique gonzalez, who was super and senator bennett who sat through a great many of these negotiating sessions. we negotiated with literally a multiplicity of farm organizations represented by specific groups, as well as the farm workers union. the employers wanted wage specificity, and they wanted out of a bls statistical gathering which they believed skewed wages. the farmers wanted decent wages and worker protections. i believe we have achieved both. the program has what's called blue card program for workers that are in this country, have been working ag for a period of time, will be committed tok ag, will pay a fine, will get a blue card, and that will lead to a green card.
secondly, it creates two additional visa programs. it does away with h2a, creates a new contract program, and also, an at-will portable visa program. they have a cap on visas of 112,000. visas, a year, for both programs, 300,000, over three s. the jurisdiction of the program is placed under the department of agriculture. secretary avagg, we discussed it with him, he is willing, and he with make available his farm service agencies which exist in every county of our nation to aid farmers as they do the necessary filings and also, farm workers as well. i believe it's a good lution. my understanding is that both sides have held press conferences to indicate their support.
there are a couple of edits that we need to make in the bill. senator schumer. but by in large, it is a g. strong program. i believe it will result in a consistent supply of agricultural workers for our farmers. so i thank you. and i yield the floor and recognize senator hatch. >> well, thank you senator feinstein. and i'm appreciative of both of you and your testimony here today. the area of high skill immigration is very important to me. i want to support this bill if i can. i have some questions about it. but let me just make a couple of points here. as you might know for several years, i served as chairman of the senate republican high tech task force and in january, the senators klobuchar, rubio and i introduced the actf 2013, commonly referred to as the i-squared bill. today i-squared has 26
sponsors, five of them on the judiciary commit east it's -- committ it's been endorsed by countless companies and organizations. if you haven't already, i hope you will take a look at that bill. the i-squared act addresses the immediate short term need to provide american employers with greater access to high skilled workers. it also addresses the long term need to invest in america's stem education. this 2-step approach will enable our country to thrive and help us to compete in today's global economy. i took a careful look at the high skilled visa provisions of the recently introduced comprehensive bill, to see how they compared with the i-squared bill. i want to list some of the areas they think need to change in these provisions. most people don't realize ats bill government to micromanag compliant american companies and how they and their
customchoose to interact in the marketplace. unlike i-squared, this bill creates burdensome outplacement, displacement and free recruitment obligations. the provisions inhibit the companies from effectively operating in a global economy where employee mobility is critical. in the introduced comprehensive immigration bill, the increase in the h1b cap is only allowed for the following -- not current, fiscal year, and they would only be raised after satisfying a complex formula. therefore the proposed market adjustment mechanism will not effectively restore to real time needs. the proposed stem education and training language would fund federally prescribed priorities instead of directing grant money to the states. the states should have the capability to set and pursue individual stem education needs. on a related matter, though, i'm very pleased to have worked with senators feinstein, rubio and bennett in crafting the new agriculture visa program in this bill. throughout the negotiations i can't tell you how many times i heard complaints about the existing h2a visa category, and why we needed to craft a
new guest worker program to meet the demands of the agriculture industry. the existing program is underutilized who to you arduous and bureaucratic the employers find the visa program and that's why this this bill we sense that the h2a program, and i tell you all this, because as the h1b and l1 provisions currently stand, the bill could be rendered unworkable for many u.s. employers, and these visa categories could follow the same fate as the soon to sunset 42a program. dr. holtz-eakin, you've written thmmtion reform can have positive effects on economic growth as you've testified here today, possibly raising per capita gross domestic product by over $1500. of course, many effects fresh waves of legal immigrants would be felt in decades to come and not
necessarily in the immediate term. but we could also see near-term effects. legal workers pay into the social security trust funds that eventually collect benefits. of course, it may become disabled. they also collect disability insurance from a program with a trust fund which will be exhausted by 2016. have you personally thought about what might be near term and longer term effects on the social security programs gnificant increase in legal immigration? >> well, i have thought about that a little bit. i think timing is important. i mean, i certainly think that concerns about current high levels of unemployment and absence of imposed on the trust are legitimate. it does not look to me that this bill would have significant impacts for anything under five years, ly 10,efore significant inflows, so i would hope, and i'm sure you share this, that we're not looking at over 7 1/2% unemployment five years from
now, and god forbid, you said unemployment at 14 percent. if you think this is entering into an economy that's working much better, we will see inflows of immigrants who will pay taxes up front that will help fund current retirees and will ultimately qualify for benefits, and there the issue, i think, is about future of the social security system, and that's a question about social security reform, not really about immigration reform. i think we do need a social security reform. >> i thank you for your work in this area and appreciate both of you being here today. >> thank you very much, senator hatch. senator schumer? >> thank you senator feinstein. first let me thank you and senator hatch for your great work on agriculture. i would also want to thank chairman leahy for having this hearing, his leadership on the issue of immigration has been amazing, and those of us in our little group
can't support him enough, can't thank him enough for considering our bill and agreeing to mark up the bill in judiciary committee. i'd also note before i get started with my friend senator hatch, about 85, 90 percent of what's in his bill is in our bill. it's very friendly to high tech.i know we want to make changes but overall it's positive from the high tech rse. >> thank you. i'd like to you really look that up. >> i will. >> because it deserves a look. >> you bet. before i get to the bill, i'd like to ask that all of us not jump to conclusions regarding the events in boston. or try to conflate those events with this legislation. in general, we're a safer country when law enforcement knows who is here, has their fingerprints, photos, et cetera, has conducted background checks, and no longer needs to look at needles through haystacks, in addition, the refugee program and asylum program have been significantly strengthened in the past five years, such that we are much more careful about screening people and determing should not be coming into the country. and if there are any changes that our homeland security experts tell us need to be
made i'm committed to making them as chairman of the immigration subcommittee and will work with others on this committee to happen and finally, two days ago as you recall there were widespreadous ports of arrests being made. this emphasizes how important it is to allow the fact toss -- facts to come out before jumping to conclusions about boston. now, on the bill, i believe this is the most balanced piece of immigration legislation that has ever been produced. the american people, and all of our colleagues, should read this bill over the next few weeks. and they will have ample time to look at every page and every paragraph before we go to markup in committee. what they will find is a bill that secures our borders, combats visa overstays, cracks down on employers who hire unauthorized workers, unleashes the potential of our legal immigration to create robust economic growth, provides a tremendous jolt to our business and leisure travel industries, and i want to thank senator
hirono for her help with that, and deals with the status of undocumented individuals in a tough, fair, and practical way. so i believe one of the words that most signifies this bill is balance. that's why we were able to get eight people with very diverse views to agree to a bill, and i think the american people will find it the same. now for some questions. first, to peter kirsanow. i know you are deporting 11 million who are here for the reasons stated, but assuming that can't happen, which you don't assume, but most people do, but most do, especially those who are unhappy about illegal immigration, isn't it better to have those here illegally, able to work legally? because they will be then be paid a higher wage, and wage rates for everybody else will go up. in my neighborhood, in brooklyn, and i think this is uehroughout america, and i ride my bicycle thro brooklyn early in the morning, and i see on street
corners, day laborers, waiting to be picked up, and i guarantee you -- and instruction workers sang, i will pay you two dollars above the wage. oh no. it is $20 for the day. they need money. some of them want to send it home. my question to you is very simple, if us and we cannot deport 11 million people. isn't it better to have a system that is in our bill where people can work, legally work, as opposed to working here illegally, which pulls down wages even more. >> thank you. ink we i do not inc. -- th8in even know how many are here. i'm an immigrant son. i support immigration. i'm here to tell you today that
even if you regularize and legalize across the board everyone who works, they will be subject to the same standards in everything else. the workers were talking about are still going to exist. we will staff -- we will still have people will take advantage of people regardless. >> isn't hearted to take advantage of them if they are legalize? -- isn't it harder to take advantage of them if they are legalized? >> i see it on a regular basis. you are living in a fantasy land if you think of a stroke of a pen on a piece of paper -- >> what do you think? >> this strikes me as a question of enforcement.
this is an issue of whether the provision written in this reform will be enforced effectively. the committee has great powers of oversight. powers of the purse strings to enforce that enforcement takes place as written. you have the authority. >> thank you, menem chair. >>mada chair. >> thank you. senator sessions. >> it is another thing to write it and another thing to see it in forced. we have laws that are ignored and not being followed in. i'm not confident based on what we have seen all ever enforce any law that makes any real difference in the situation. that is the way it is. we have a big problem there. to be like 1986 again? there were promises then it
would have infective enforcement. a number of things that have not happened. i will not go into them. one thing i think we can tend to agree upon is that the nation would be better served for a more higher skilled worker in areas where there is less competition in the lower skilled of improvingrms productivity and gdp growth. moving to at the core an immigration system that rewards skills is a good piece of economic policy. >> i understand the piece that you have written about the increase of growth is based on the assumption that there'll be on immigration flow. is that correct? >> not exactly. >> it appeared to me that the
numbers -- why would you say that? we are not against immigration. we will have immigration. the question is whether it will be lawful and whether it will serve the national interest. i think we need to talk more about the issues you are raising. there are people out there who are hurting today. they are young men, particularly, and others who need to be working today. they cannot find work. need to be at a decent wage and have some sort of opportunity for a retirement and vacation andbe a healthcare plan. that we are not providing that for them. there is a real social danger happening in america from that unemployment. i think the
question is who benefits? i'm not sure i would like to have my own time for going through every discrete item. there are a lot of working parts. it would take months to even absorb attempt of of what is going on. as a major restructuring of our country. it is devastating over there. t st from the unemployment. in our hearings at the civil rights commission, we focused on the effect of immigration on blacks and other low skilled workers. they dealt with employment, but there is a cascade effect that went into incarceration rates and single-family rates and all of the other pathologies that me froos i think you are exactly correct. a professor has written about
the incarceration rates and poverty. we think that is true. .et's consider this situation a job opens up. first, in the labo statistics, 88,000 americans only found a job. 486,000 dropped out of the labor market. those retired. 4/5 of those dropped out because they had given up. then a job opens up. it has a decent wage for a low skilled worker. who should get that job? would it be better for the economy if an anonymous, on a plate american -- unemployed american perhaps on welfare and food stamps and other benefits, would it be better for america
if the american unemployed citizen got that job rather than bringing in a labor from abroad to take that job? >> t question answers itselfwe e civilianopulation that artg ritd work. hinkinout exnding the labor supply. not to put a fine point on it, but that is madness. -- have too few jobs for may way too many people. >> we have many low skilled workers that we can find jobs for. this does not reduce low skilled labor in america. it does not confront that problem. my democrat colleagues point when president bush was in office -- they don't do so much now, -- but it has been declining due to inflation. i worry about it.
i do not think this was considered properly in the bill which is often written by big .uses -- big business thank you. >> i opposed it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> this is not the first hearing we have had in the judiciary committee on immigration. i want to refer back to a subcommittee hearing that i think senator schumer shared in 2009 of the subcommittee on refugees and border security. one of the witnesses that rmumeral dr. alan greenspan, i think dr. greenspan has mixed reviews
among different folks as to the credibility. he has a considerable number of adherents. but the sake of those who are at the adherents, i would like to relate some of the testimony that he provided in that hearing. "there is little doubt that unauthorized, that is illegal immigration, has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy." unauthorized immigrants serve as a flexible component of our workforce, often a safety valve when demand is pressing and among the first to be discharge when the economy falters. some evidence to suggest that unskilled illegal immigrants marginally suppressed wage levels. ,ut then he goes on to say however, the estimated which suppression and fiscal costs are
relatively small. economists generally view the overall economic benefits of this work force as significantly outweighing cost. the benefits of this work force significantly outweighing the cost." he is saying that about a workforce that is at that point being the status of illegal. he used the word "unauthorized." there you agree with that? you are an economist, mr. douglas holtz-eakin. and by bringing them into the daylight, what effect would that have? >> i agree with the basic point. the impact of bringing them into illegal labor force would been twofold. -- legal wlabor force
would been twofold. the first is, from the perspective of the worker, it would eliminate the capacity for exploitation and bad working conditions. from the employer's standpoint, it would allow them to pick flexibly managed their labor force without fear of legal repercussions, which every employer would like to do. i guess the thing that i find frustrating about the debate is that there are two aspects of the economics that have emerged as utterly clear over the past several years. number one, the presence of competition that is a real issue for our low-skilled americans is not about immigration. it is about being in a global economy where there is a great abundance of low-skilled labor and geographic location has very little to do with it. the bill does not change that. that's a reality we cannot change. >> off shoring of american jobs imion. much to do with it as >> it has as much to do with a skilled worker or unskilled workers being paid half the weight in another country and coming. being paid twice the wage.
there's competition regardless. i would hope our aspirations would be greater than protecting low-skilleam rpetuity from competition ban not avoid and instead building their skills. shod be . >> if mrpan greens correct, then even as illegal and unauthorized workers, this community made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy and that contribution only goes up when they become legal and authorized, correct? >> yes. >> i just want to clear up one thing. i'm looking at your wikipedia page. it says that you oppose "those in the racial grievance industry who talk incessantly about the slightest of racial disparities whether real or imagined." is that a quotation of yours or of somebody else that is being put into that article?
>> we all know that wikipedia isnfallible. i do disagree with those who cot on tasra ead ofeing colorblind. >> is this a quotation of yours? >> i don't recall. it does not sound like me. >> i'm sorry. my time is up, gentlemen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the hearing. i appreciate all my colleagues that have different views and this is something america needs to work through. but let's talk about where we are going as a nation. in 1983 i was a young captain in air force. in 2013 at, by south carolina standards, i'm a middle-aged senator. in 2043, i will be 87, if i live that long and if i can follow the senator strom thurmond
model, i will have two tms left in the senate and i willmi. ght rod -- might be around, but the rest of you, i will talk to your families. for those who are around in 2043, here's what i want you to look at. if nothing changes, by 2043, medicare and medicaid will take gdp defunct. >> the current trajectory is we will be close to half. >> 18% of gdp. how much to be put in revenue today? >> normally, 18% if we are lucky. >> here's the deal. in 2043, if we don't do something about medicare andme topataxes thospr. can that be? 10,000 baby boomers per day are
retiring. in 1950, there were 16.5 workers for every social security recipient. 23rd, there will be 2.1. mr. holtz-eakin, your point is unless we have a massive baby boom, the numbers are going the wrong direction. >> absolutely. >> how do you supplement? when i was born in 1955, there were 16 workers for every retiree. today there are basically 3. in 20 years or less there will be 2. where does the work force come from to keep the american economy going? would you agree with me it comes from immigration? >> to a certain extent. but this is also a matter of entitlement reform. >> its a matter of entitlement reform and a matter of workforce. >> that's true, senator. >> two people cannot do what 16 people used to do.
it's going the wrong direction. you're right. we need entitlement reform. but if we also don't do immigration reform to access illegal labor, we cannot get to where we want to go as a nation in terms of economic growth. displacing american workers, here's the one thing i agree with senator sessions about it. i don't want foreign workers coming in under the h1 program, low-skilled or high skilled guest worker, to displace american worker was willing to doob. in this bill we have a requirement to advertise the job at a competitive wage. we had a knock down drag out about what that was. are you familiar with the agricultural industry? >> i'm not an expert, but i do know some things. >> i think senator feinstein is. why is it most people in the agricultural industry are hispanic? >> i think it's because hispanics are illegal immigrants working in the agricultural
industry and substandard wages. >> let's assume that for a moment if we made them all legal, they would receive the benefits of wage and hour laws. >> many of them would. gregg's you believe there's a -- >> do you believe the's a dynamic in america that no matter how much you advertise a job, there are certain areas of the economy that you will not find an american worker? >> i don't know that. >> i can tell you i do. i can tell you i do, living in south carolina. when you go to the meat packing plant, it's no accident that everybody in that plant is hispanic. when you go to the peach farms, there is no accident that everybody there is from somewhere else. not saying people in south carolina are lazy. i am saying that there are certain parts of this economy you are not going to find an american worker no matter what you do, no matter how much you
advertise, unless you just want to put yourself out of business. that is a reality that is uncomfortable to hear, but is the god's truth. in the future, i want to test my proposition by making sure that all these jobs in agriculture, all these jobs in meatpacking, godown list of jobs that are really tough, that they are going to be advertised at a higher wages than they are today. and we will see who's right or wrong. do you believe it's possible for a country to have a welfare program that suppresses labor participation? when you add up all the benefits, you make more not working than you do working? >> you agree? >> i agree. >> and you agree, peter? >> absolutely. >> i want to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for being here today. and the two witnesses rearranged their scheduitou
minutes noti. that means a lot to the committee. one of the reasons that we stream this live is we have had other hearings on immigration, so as many people as possible could see it. e-mail traffic is coming through. people are watching. americans are concerned about this, even in a week when there is horrible, terrible tragic news that seems to be overriding everything else. >> senator cornyn had to go to texas foat th all have. >> and some are inescapable. i know that senator cornyn is concerned about that. it's one of the terrible things
i'm talking about. if i were him, i would be doing precisely what he's doing. i don't think anybody faults him on that. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. my focus here today is on the economic consequences of immigration reform. senator hatch already mentioned the bill we did together, along with a number of other people on this committee called i squared, which makes it easier to bring in a number of professional employees for jobs that are open now but also a number of economic studies show how that adds more american jobs. when you bring over an inventor or someone who has special skills, the mystery of this country is that they have invented things and come up with new ideas that employ hundreds of thousands of people. that's our focus. my first comment is just what do you seen as three of the biggest
economic benefits of immigration reform even beyond the issue i just raised? >> i think at the core, the bill is imperfect as it's written. but it makes the fundamental decision to move away from a system that is driven by family reunn, asylum refugee considerations toward an economically based merit system. that is a very healthy development for a country that needs to have a larger population in the future, have a skilled labor force, compete globally. that's the overwhelming benefit of the bill. inside that, the emphasis on some of the stem provisions, making them more responsive to economic conditions is a good thing.
having a system that has an entry/exit security system as well as economic conditions is a good thing. a variety of economic provisions in this legislation are good, on balance. >> i want america to win. >> me, too. >> the u.s. is not using immigration policy effectively and many other countries are, to improve economic growth. what countries did you see as doing a good job? >> if you look at the numbers, it's in my written testimony, under core visas, they are for economic reasons at the moment. given the paramount need for economic growth, that cuts across our ability to deal with all our policy challenges. those will all be easier with faster economic growth. focusing on that makes more sense. other countries -- we have charts in the written testimony have a high percentage. other countries that have made reforms recently like the united kingdom, looking to do this.
if you look at the countries that are struggling right now and likely to fail -- japan. europe failing, the exception being germany, which has undertaken a particular percentage of turkish labor. we have to recognize economic reality and adjust our policies. >> this goes simultaneously with training our own workers and having more and more kids going into science, engineering, technology, and math. we cannot just do one thing without the other. one of the details of our bill that is included in the gang of eight proposal is providing work authorization to the spouses of high skilled workers. i also see this as a women's issue. and an economic issue, because many of the spouses can make great contributions to our
economy. can you comment on this? >> if you look at the past several decades, one of the overriding impacts in the u.s. is in the entry of women to the labor force. that's been one of the sources of increased growth in the u.s., probably the most important the flows of immigration by adding that second kick of both genders participate. that will allow us to continue something we have seen for the past decades. >> we have worked very hard to increase visa times for tourism dons. w t state department in advertising untrr co in the gang of eight proposal is something i worked on with senator schumer and others that would modernize the visa work program and reduce visa were times even more. -- wait times even more. in 2012, international visitors added billions to the u.s. economy. we have lost 16% of international tourism.
for every point we have lost, its 167,000 jobs in america. can you talk about the economic benefits of increasing the number of tourists? and why this is important -- also, this is not the first think people think of when they think about immigration because it's just tourist visas? >> post-9/11, the need to have an enhanced security regime had big impact on travel and tou and we lost a lot of the economic benefits. you can go to the destination cities and see the impact. the question going for it is can we marry solid economics in that area with a secure entry/exit visa system? that is something i hope could happen. >> point is other countries including some of the ones you mentioned, have good security measures as we dew point for -- as we do for these kinds of tourist visas, but how can we do it more efficiently without changing any of the security screens? >> yes. >> thank you very much.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. and thanks to both of our witnesses for joining us today. virtually everneth r miand that it edtoe reformed. for far too long it has made it comparatively easy for people to cross our borders and stay here. we don't faced just one big immigration challenge. it is a complex puzzle with dozens of interconnected pieces. just like puzzles we all put together as children, some of the pieces cannot be incorporated until others are in place already. given this unavoidable reality, it's clear we are not going to able to fix our entire immigration system overnight, nor could we hope to analyze even a small fractn of t most critical issues in one or
two hearings before this committee. the process of reform will have to be considered and implemented in stages over the course of many years. clearly, the challenges we face are hard and will take time to address. so it's all the more important that we begin this process immediately. i applaud the efforts of my colleagues who have worked hard to develop a proposal that's before us today. theirs has been an enormous undertaking and i appreciate their dedication to making progress toward this kind of lasting reform that we need. today i look forward to discussing a few key issues that are part of the enormous immigration puzzle. i've introduced several pieces of immigration reform legislation, and least one of which has been mentioned several times today has been incorporated into this bill. o primarcoset, i must express current bill and with the committee oppose the current urrent pathittee's c
. like many americans, i am weary of trying to do this all in one fell swoop. good policy really flows from massive bills that seek to fix every problem in a single sweeping piece of legislation. few legislators actually understand everything in such bills and no one can pretend to comprehend all the moving pieces and likely outcomes and results. such wide-ranging legislation inevitably produces unintended consequences. especially when it comes to our immigration system. some reforms are necessary prerequisites for other subsequent reforms. it makes little sense to make decisions about later stages before we know -- before the essential foundations are even in place. it's like trying to put the roof on a new house before raising the walls that will hold it up. in particular, this bill seeks ddsshe 1million before other preconditions are actually satisfied. it treats the 11 million as if they are a single monolithic group here for the same reason
and under the same circumstances, which they are not. trying to resolve every issue all at once is also politically problematic. there is broad consensus on some necessary reforms, but others are highly controversial. we ought not to hijack common sense and essential measures by linking them to contentious ones. my second concern is with the committee's process thus far. reforms of this magnitude and importance deserve more than a couple hastily scheduled hearings. this bill was not even made available until wednesday morning. 844 pages of complicated legislative text with dozens of component parts. given the unusually and unnecessarily compressed schedule, there has been no opportunity for senators or witnesses to read or digest the substance of the bill. there is no way as a committee we could possibly be prepared this morning to debate more than
a fraction of this massive bill. itould be impossible to have a meaningful discussion with rigorous analysis under such circumstances. witnesses were asked to submit written testimony before they could have read the entire bill. even with the help of committee staff, who have worked through the night in preparation, we cannot say we understand each provision and how all the pieces fit together, not even close. that is why i favor a sensible approach. republicans and democrats share much in common. they agree on a lot of common ground on most of the immediate issues. on central elements like border security, employment verification, guest worker programs, and high-skilled immigration, we are in agreement and could enact significant reforms in these areas. we should not delay progress in these areas because we have differences in a few others. each of these issues is complex and we should have robust and
substantive debate over the best way to structure each before. i look forward to beginning that discussion today. and thank you for your participation. >> thank you, senator. senator franken? >> i am sorry secretary napolitano cannot be here today, but i want to thank her and the department of homeland security, the fbi, atf, the boston police department, all the ofessials woono e this tragedy in boston. my wife and i met almost 44 years ago at a freshman mixer in copley square. oue r armi the peopl boston. turning to the subject of our hearing, i want to thank the
senators on this committee for their work, senator schumer, senator graham, senator durbin, senator flake, senator feinstein, senator hatch. i think that we need a comprehensive approach to this. i do not think you can do this piecemeal. everything is complex and related and that is why you have to do -- to fix this deeply broken system, you need a comprehensive approach. i think we have had a broken system. it has been a drag on our economy. mr. holtz-eakin, thank you for your testimony. it will help minnesota i want to thank the senators who have done this, getting us as far as we have gotten.
mr. holtz-eakin, one of the most things i have most pleased about is what it does for agriculture, particularly in minnesota. minnesota is one of the biggest dairy producers in our nation. dairy farmers have not been able to access the work force they have needed for years. one program that allows farmers to get guest workers is open only to seasonal workers, and you cannot milk cows seasonally. you could, but you would get very uncomfortable cows. [laughter] i have been calling for this -- anyway. enough said. >> i used to be chairman of the senate agriculture committee. you are bringing back to my roots. >> vermont has a very great dairy-producing culture.
i'm glad the gang of eight felt the same way. we have heard testimony on the issue of productivity. it seems having access to a dependable legal work force has got to be a boom for various parts of our agricultural industry. what do you think? >> it will help over all productivity. it is important to recognize that what i think of as skills when i look on a piece of paper does not matter how the maet determines skills. the more we have in immigration reform that reflects the reality and responses to it, the better our workforce will be and higher>> i believe our broken
has been a drag on the economy, and senator graham illustrated very well interesting demographic arguments that you make in your testimony. usto r arire or some have retired. so i want to underscore that point. i want to ask about the economic impact of treating same-sex couples differently under immigration laws. in large companies minnesota, carlson and medtronic, say the current law hurts their ability to recruit and retain top talent. they are part of a coalition, uniting american families act,
and a bill will give committed same-sex couples the same immigration opportunities as other couples. anothercently told of minnesota company, a smaller company, that will likely have to shut down because the owners, a same-sex couple, will not be able to stay in the country. this point i would like it to enter into the record a letter from the 30 companies that comprise this coalition. is that all right, mr. chairman? i would like to enter a letter from 30 companies in support of your bill. >> under those circumstances, is quite all right, and of course we will be delighted to have it. i know everybody will want to read it before that day is out. thank you. >> ok, thank you. i just want to finish this point.
speakask mr. holtz-eakin to it. do we not miss an opportunity to strengthen our economy by not allowing lbgt citizens to sponsor their partners as residency in this country, as a matter of fairness and an economic positive? >> from an economic point of view, economic productivity is productivity, and you want to bring all the opportunities into the marketplace. the provisions of the bill i am not familiar wit a the magnitudes, i cannot gss >> thank you both forr testimony. >> thank you. senator flake? >> thank you, and thank you for having this hearing. tookoltz-eakin, congress up this issue, the heritage foundation came up with a study with a headline that this would cost the taxpayers $2.6
trillion over some time. that study has now been discounted by quite a number of organizations. i know you have looked at that. what are your feelings on a study like that that purports these kinds of costs to the taxpayers? will resistemptation to turn this into a graduate seminar, but i think the top line is i have reservations about that particular heritage study. the foundation has done a lot of good work, but in terms of that exercise, it leaves out things that i think are most important, the dynamic effects in my testimony, and the study i did. heritage has the capability of doing that analysis, and i would hope they would bring something like that out if the opportunity arose. hotthe second thing i worry about in that study is the basic design does not shed light on immigration reform.
there is nothing about that study that says what happens as a result of passing legislation, so it does not infoed decng gh faclde, andsee studies desigd after reform. the last i will not belabor, the comparisons and that study are between very low-skilled immigrants and all of americans, including by implication bill gates, myself, you, whatever. you can anticipate the outcome of that comparison. >> comments were made about the number of immigrants coming in who are regularized who then take welfare benefits. can you speak to that? >> again, it was not tied to a particular reform exercise, and i think you have to be careful
about the assumptions you make. we know the labor force participation of first- generation immigrants is higher than the native-born. you go to the second generation where people worry about public programs, more college degrees in second-degeneration than native-born, higher rates of labor force participation. theg those -- it is not case that program participation is higher than in the native- board population on the whole. >> thank you. you mentioned that you believe the number of illegal immigrants currently here exerted downward pressure on wages. is that accurate? >> that is correct. thatd a regular rising in population would still have some downward pressure on wages? >> that is correct. accs ate to say -- the alternative would be continue in the current path of allowing
these illegal immigrants to work in the work force, exerting that downward pressure, or have some plan to deport them or take them out of the work force. do you see that as a reasonable measure to somehow remove them from the work force short of some kind of reform like this? >> i do not think those are viable alternatives. is not a question between regularization. there are a lot of intermediate steps that the committee may want to take a look at. one of the things is i think -- and i have not looked at all 900 pages -- but taking steps to ensure that it is difficult for rogue employers to employ illegal immigrants or employ anybody outside the former of existing law would be very salutary. we can do that. there are a number of conditions we can employ short of deportations, but if we do
that that we will get to far along to the process of making sure everybody in america is paid the way they're supposed to be paid, not working under substandard conditions. >> you are aware of testimony from groups like the group that you use represent, the national association of manufacturers, saying they cannot find the skilled labor they need among our work force now and that the economy would benefit some with some kind of program to allow others to come in. you concede any economic benefit like dr. holtz-eakin does to this kind of reform? >> i would yield to doug on a number of issues related to the economic benefits. however, there is a significant downward pressure on a whole host of occupational categories by regularization. that is unequivocal. k weave had at least two hearings before the civil
rights commission where there was at least near unanimity that that is the case. i do think that we should have some type of immigration reform. i think immigration must be had with respect to do that any considered fashion so that there is a group of people, and especially low-skilled americans, who are not thrown under the bus. i hear discussion about benefits to the united states economy. but most skilled americans are significant parts of that economy, and they are being excluded from this discussion. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> like all of you, i appreciate the time you have spent with me in the briefings before we set these hearings. i know you have had to juggle your schedules to do that, but i thought it was a productive meeting. i was struck by the democrats
and republicans, struck by the complete absence of partisanship in that meeting. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased that the gang of eight has reached an agreement and produced a bill that will overhaul the current immigration system in ways that will provide help to milons of dualnd filies ve ha a the three of the gang of eight members are members of this cmittee, and i ank them, senators schumer, durbin, flake, and chairman lee. so many other members, feinstein, hatch, had tremendous input into this bill. dr. holtz-eakin, there are economic considerations throughout this bill. timehairman, i spend some and focus on families in my
remarks, and i start by saying the family unity is very much a part of economic success for immigrants. family unity issues, economic success, economic vitality, these are not either/or propositions. those two should go together in my view. this bill will help some families to reunite, but for others, especially from asian countries, it will dramatically restrict the ability of to reunite with certain loved ones, which has been the basis of our immigration system since 1965. while i understand compromises had to be made, i believe that in some areas this bill is more restrictive than necessary, and of course i will join my colleagues in continuing to specifically, s744 eliminates a
category and replaces it with a met-basepoint system. i believe the new system could exclude many immigrant family members from reuniting with their u.s. citizen siblings. this is troubling, because siblings are an integral part of family structure. they support and help each other find jobs, provide both an emotional and financial support, and care for each other's families. in addition, many times a sibling may be your only family member. for example, i recently met a woman named nadine whose brother is her only remaining family member. they are extremely close and have been separated for many years. i'm concerned that cases like nadine's will no longer have a meaningful opportunity to petition for their sibling. i would also like to see improvement in the family system to include lbgt families, brought up by my
colleague senator franken, and the children of filipino world war ii veterans, and we are joined at this hearing by some of our filipino world war ii veterans who have been separated from their children. to chairman, i look forward continue discussions and the opportunity to improve this legislation. there have already been comments on the visa program, which i support, and i yield the remainder of my time. thank you. >> thank you, and i thank everybody who has been here. this has been a good hearing. we are arranging the times for secretary napolitano to be here. i think all of us realize with what is going on by the secretary of homeland security is at homeland security, even i receive ongoing briefings
of the circumstances there -- should be. i thank everybody for taking the time, and we will have hearing on monday. we are arranging another day for secretary napolitano. i think the two witnesses who came here to rearrange their schedules on short notice. appreciate it. it is what makes the committee work. i would also note for the record that as you go back over your notes on what to do and to any of your answers, i will keep the record open for that. we're not playing a game of -- we are just trying to have thes. i thank both parties for being here. we stand in recess until the call the chair.
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ofon your screen a picture dzhokhar tsarnaev, still at large after police and fbi
investigations in the area of watertown, a suburb of boston. the lock down request has been lifted by authorities, and governor deval patrick announced public transportation is ronnie. police say the suspect is still in the state because of his ties to the area and we will continue to bring updates and briefings as they become available on the c-span networks. up with a me number to tell this committee and the american people. we have responsibility as well, for you to say we are going to see how things turn out that will determine the size of the post-2014 force, i believe is tragic and terrible mistake for which we may pay a very heavy price. >> senator, can i cment? to be clear, i did not say leave it completely vague. we are advising at the battalion
level. we will lift off the brigade level this fall. the number of post-2014 is linked to the number we believe we need to provide advice and assist post 2014. >> you have toait2014 to this is the afghans first summer inheead. this summer will be the bellwether for afghan performance in the 2014 and beyond. >> this weekend, the commander of u.s. and allied forces in afghanistan on expected december 2014 troop numbers. saturday afternoon at 12:30. at 8:30, the dedication of the zimmermann meeting room. zimmermann was fatally shot as he rushed the gunman who wounded his boss, gabrielle giffords, and 9:00 p eastern, from london, portions of margaret thatcher's funeral service. on c-span2, but tv in los
angeles. life coverage but wit and your r authors of the festival, and on c-span3, american history tv looks at revolutionary board-era printing. that is sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. today, patrick donner ho said the postal service is losing $25 million a day. he adds that unless congress takes action, the total short hit $60 billion in a few years. [applause] thank you, angela, for that kind introduction. it is a pleasure to be here today and speak with everyone, and we will make sure we have got time for our questions.
i would like to thank the national press club for the invitation and organizing today's event. the last time i spoke here was 18 months ago, and i gave a speech that made the following points -- number one, the postal service is a tremendous organization and is in a financial crisis. number 2, congress needs to reform our business model and give us more bucs ability to solve our financial issues. numberhree t, the lack of quick action by congress will do in the postal service and forced it to become a burden on the american taxpayer. i was sorely tempted to give the same exact speech again. but i thought, have i become that cynical? i will admit being frustrated, but a lack of progress of postal reform legislation over the past few years, and i am not cynical about it.
i am not so cynical that i would deliver that same speech again. i am more optimistic than ever about the future of the postal service. a few weeks ago the congress blocked our plan to transition to a new delivery schedule. we said we can deliveracmonday , monday to friday, and key post offices open on saturday, and it would save the postal service $2 billion annually. that is a necessary part of $20ing a gap which could be billion by 2017. the american public supports it by a wide margin. more than 80% support it once they understand the facts, including citizens of older 55 and in rural areas. it is financially responsible. a bill congress passed
that stopped us in our tracks. i believe we will get the flexibility to movtodeliurryches the right thing to do. congress faces a simple choice. it can decide to start operating a lot of money to prop up a broken postal service, or it can give the organization the flexibility to operate more in effectively. in case you're wondering what the cost might be, the cost of propping up our broken model, including resolving all the debts and the faults we currently cannot afford to pay, might be in the neighborhood of $58 billion, and that is just through 2017. you know what -- it would be completely unnecessary. it may shock you to learn the postal service could be profitable today and in the long-term future. weus orate differen
and so i am optimistic. i am optimistic that congress will pass a bill this year, and i am optimistic about a restructured postal service for the future. her earlier this week we published an updated five-year business plan. our plan closes a substantial budget gap by 2017 and puts the service on sound financial footing for years to come. what is important about the plan is it is not the fact that that math adds up, because i think anybody here could figure out a way to make that add up if you want to make some pretty extreme choices. what is important about this plan is it can be implemented in a responsible manner that is fair to both customers and employees. we do not have to resort to layoffs. or contacting large chunks of business out from our work force. we do not have to make radical changes in our products or services, nor to our pricing, and we do not have to be bailed
out by american taxpayers. do we need to make substantial change? yes, and can we do it in a responsible way? absolutely, but we cannot afford to wait, and this situation, time is money. if we did not start making these changes, which will only be left with extreme options. in our situation, if you think about it, it is not so much different and what the rest of the government faces and a lot of state and local governments faceoday. weto get ahead of these fiscal imbalances. if we want to avoid major noticeable disruptions at a later time, we have to make responsible, thoughtful choices now, and that is what our plan aims to do. one of the most important changes that we think in the plan is to take over our health care plan. everybody believes the federal system is overly generous in terms of benefits. the truth is the federal health
care system is not overly generous to our employees, but it is overly expensive. and that is why we want to shift our employees and retirees from a federal system to a privately run plan, and when we do this we will provide our employees and retirees with the same or better health care coverage and a -- at a dramatically lower costs. such a move would save our employees and retirees at best estimate $700 million a year in annual premiums and save the postal service $8 billion because we would be effectively eliminate the need to pre-fund one day for the period would also be able to invest much more in effected health and wellness programs which we cannot do now. financially it is a smart n movend also to the responsible thing to do for the employees and retirees and it makes so
much sense that it fills me with optimism that congress will support it. avto ctelieve we will. one of the concepts i think a lot about relates to the pensions, and the notions of the postal employee of the future. i started my postal career as a clerk in pittsburgh in 1975, 37 years, almost 38, and i went to the university of pittsburgh. at night i was a mail processing cars for the downtown post office. i think a lot about the organization change from the perspective of my own experience. i have seen tremendous change in the mailing industry, not just the postal service, our entire industry. in the last 10 years, and i will tell you this, if you think there is a lot of change in the last 10 years, white till we see what happens in the next 10 to 20 years. it will be more dramatic.
we would be hard-pressed to say what our industry is getting to look like in the year 2003 or 2014. think about that. a young person that we heart today like i was tired, 20 years old in 1975, will probably be here working well past the year 2015 and probably in today's and varmint past the year 2060. our current retirement model is designed to give employees a d is a model the made a lot of sense in the 1940's an 1950's, but will not be appropriate for the 2040's and that 2050's. the benefit of the defined contribution system is it gives employees options to consider. if job changes are possible, why hold people the benefits that
they may not be able to use for 50 years? we are currently on a 400,000ry to hit about career employees by the year 2017, and that wa changes we have proposed as we shrink down. after we reach that number, it will give us a lean work for spirit which have a leaner work force right now from the standpoint of the network and a six-day delivery. after that, when will start hiring people. we estimate in the next 10 years between 2017 and 2027, depending on volume, and volume is the key, the postal service will hire up to potentially 20,000 people a year annually to replace our workers. i am aboverat our average is 54 years old in this organization, so we will have people leaving the organization. we have to put a retirement
system in place that is appropatfothese people coming on andt has to provide a high level of certainty and predictability in an unpredictable or, and i'm confident we can define a great system that could offer attractive employee contributions and enable our employees to plan for and managed retirement finances much more effectively than they do today. it would be portable, which is going to be very important going forward in this world. i would like to have a defined contribution plan in place for every new employee by the year 2015. it is about continuing to be a great place to work, have the competitive work force, and being fair and responsible as an employer. -- so much sense that it gives me optimism that we can get the authority under law to get this done. another important area of
flexibility relates to products and services that we provide. the postal service does not have pricing flexibility. for example, which cannot bend a little bit on an offer we have got a customer. let's say we are asked to compete on a contract to ship 100,000 packages for a potential customer of the course of the year, and we will provide a price and our competitors, great competitors, they do the same. customer often boast a competitor and says you have the contract if he can do better o pri. they do not come back to us because theynow itld we to long to be able to get back to them with some flexibility. what we would like to do is and then have the regulatory commission just take a look and review after the fact. it makes us more competitive. it is a small change that makes a lot of sense and it would obviously help us compete more effectively and because it makes a lot of sense, it makes me again optimistic that we can get
this type of flexibility. we would also like to have more flexibility on types of products and services that we provide. technology is going to transform the mailing industry and a lot of new and exciting ways, and meneses support the speed-up in the transformation. it is not hard to imagine that customers exhortations are court to change amatically in the ng. they alreadyav if you look a run and see the changes which have all experienced, customers tastes are changing. imagine be able to use or smart phone to read-direct your e-mail -- packages prepared packages. imagine being able to use and app that will displace what you will be getting in your mailbox over the next few days. that will create marketers anticipation. the male is the one last place where you can get a surprise,
and there is a lot of anticipation you can build around that. imagine if you were to get a notification the moment that your packages and your mail were delivered to your door. imagine if the mail carrier technology enables someone to tap a piece of mail on a smart phone and not only in one click make a purchase, but have it delivered at the same time. we can dramatically improve the experience of mail and the experience of delivery if we unlocked the power of data and digital technologies. the postal service is working on some of these technologies are now to transform the experience of mail and shipping. we are pursuing avenues of product of the element today that are not restricted by existing law, but we are also seeking additional flexibility in other promising areas. the postal service provides a delivery platform for t $800
billion mailing industry that s 8 million people. its industry, and the way to keep that platform strong is to innovate in ways that improve the experience of delivery and the experience that people have with their mail. having the flexibility to create new products and pursue business opportunities is an important way to keep postal service and the milling industry in total healthy. and i hope everyone is as optimistic as i am that we can get the flexibility through law to make this happen. as i look out to the future, there is an lot to build on. marketing mail or direct mail it is rebounding nicely. we went through a rough spot there with the recession, and despite all the ways that people change in terms of communicating and selling products, marketing male continues to garner roughly 12% of the total spent in marketing
in this united states. it has been consistent for 30 years, and that is because marketing milk provides such a strong return on investment. i have no doubt it will continue to be as strong and a growing part of our business. the largest and most profitable part of the male is first-class male parrot that is what pays the bills. have we seen a decline in the is a first-class mail? yes, we have. people pay bills online, it is th is awy hard to compete with free. ers other part of that story that has to do with first- class mail that businesses sent to their customers. it is now a little bit, -- is down a little bit, but that also includes a substantial drop that we experience with the recession in 2008 and 2009, and in a fairly weak economy since then did that says people about you hard correspondence they receive from businesses. they want that information in
hard copy and they are resisting the idea of going totally digital. we have heard anecdotally a lot of people that did do that and either missed a payment and they have said start those bills back up again. do not write the obituary for first-class mail barrett it delivers a lot of value fo the sender and receiver, and it accounts for $28 billion worth of revenue for the postal service today, and i guarantee it will be around for a long while. the most promising part of our business in terms of growth is package delivery, which is up more than 14% over last year's. we have created much of a credit by innovating and marketing new offerings, and we are benefiting from the big rise in e-commerce. the way people use the mail and deliver service is changing it and is an exciting, and these changes will create opportunities for growth for the postal service and drop the entire mailing industry.
the postal service is a tremendous organization, with the exceptional dedicated workforce. our people do a tremendous job day in and day after you saw it this week with the ricin threat. they do an excellent job. the postal service plays an indispensable role in the american colonies. today has a business model that is broken. the good news is we can fix what is broken. it just requires we set aside some outdated missions and views of this organization. it also requires that kneepad ask another question about one kind of service is best for america? we cannot stick with our current charter, so we have to create a new one. and we have to be bold, because the scale of our problem is pretty lin the past year the pol service recorded a financial loss of $15.9 billion.
included in there is an $11 billion default on payments to the u.s. treasurer, and we have used up all our borrowing authority. last year we only had four days of cash on hand which means we came in pretty close to not be able to pay our bills. the postal service cannot continue to limp along in such a week and financial stake. it is unfair to the businesses that support us. we need to provide customers to compromise -- who comprise every part of therica a comet with the predictability and confidence that they need while they are investing in the mail, and as we to do that is for congress to help us fix this broken business model, the sooner the better. they're asking congress to give the postal service the authority and flexibility to close what could be 8 $20 billion budget gap by the year 2017.
we can achieve this if the postal service can get ahead of the curve and be profitable for years to come. it can be done without being a burden to the american taxpayers. all it requires is flexibility and a few key areas -- the ability to determine our own delivery frequency got the ability to develop and price products quickly, the ability to control our health care and retirement costs, the ability to switch to a defined contribution retirement system for newly hired employees come a streamlined governance model, and more flexibility in the way we leverage our workforce. i am encouraged that congress is working on legislation to address these issues. i am optimistic that we will gain these important areas of flexibility, and if we make these changes, i am confident the postal service will better serve the american public and drive growth in the american economy into the future.
we are on a responsible, comment essence path to greater deposal service that can adapt to a changing world. we just require the authority to make it happen. take you very much. -- thank you very much. [applause] >> said you are optimistic about congressional action this year. what makes you optimistic? >> there is a couple things, number one, if you think about what has happened over the past few years, there has been a lot more attention to this issue i think from an industry perspective. everybody has brought that issue from a postal service standpoint, between our initial five-year plan last year, and arch communications there from what the congress hears from our employee unions, customers. people know we have to fix this
sue. i was encge the hearing in house. there was a lot of discussion afterwards of both sides saying we need to fix this and we need to move. >> lawmakers from the house and senate said they will meet the crist meet this week to begin discussions on hashing out a bill. what have you heard about meetings and progress on putting a bill in writing? but we are waiting to hear the outcome of any meetings that happen. one of the things unfortunately this week that has caused a little bit of destruction has been what is going on with the ricin threats and has been disruptive, especially on the senate side. we're waiting to hear. the leaders in both the house and senate and both parties have expressed to us their desire to move on this issue. yet the thing that speaks well is the fact that chairman carpe' sharing a month and a half ago, but chairman eyes and representative cummings came in and testified they want to move ahead.
>> paint a picture of what happens if congress does not pass postal reform legislation this year. >> well, our board has been concerned with that. that is what we've taken the actions we have taken. net begin a time frame so you understand a lot of the thinking behind that. last fall, we thought after the lame-duck -- before the lame- duck session began, that we would have an opportunity to see legislation that looked encouraging, and at the last moment things did not get done. our board is concerned, as i mentioned, about liquidity. last year we came close to not paying a bill. for days cassius not a good idea for some but the pace as many businesses as we do. the board saidf can ings appeared we came back with recommendations. a couple of them you know about.
and dancing the consolidations and the move from six-day to five-day delivery the intent was to make sure we do what we have in our control and be responsible around keeping the liquidity in the organization. after the decision of a couple weeks ago that congress made to tonge the c.r. and lead us make the five-day move, the board said it violated pricing, are there things we can do there? reach out to the associations and see if we can do things there. we have to keep every option open. " -- what we would much rather do is get this legislation moving now because time is money. >> recently senator carper set for august is the goal for passing postal reform, congressman issa said the end of the year. your strategy to make the move faster? >> again, it would be our hope
that it would be done in august. i know as they talk of maybe they can get everybody on a time like to get it moved up that much quicker. our fear is everything congress deals with, you never know what's of the comes up that ties ever been up over there with a lot more attention. from our perspective, based on finances and the fact quicker we move on these, the better, which would like to see it move as quickly as possible. >> he said he did not want and need a bill out, but is the postal service had it for a bailout if you do not want one? , that we talk about bailout. i think that the worst thing we could ever do as an industry is let that happen. i also think within this industry i would encourage you to read the five-year plan, encourage you to provide feedback, but that five fisher plan says that everybody puts a little sacrifice in, and a little is the word. if we did not end up in a
situation where we put that little sacrifice and, i will tell you eventually we will be sorry for that. and i do not see there is a big case in the american public -- we do not see that in the polls -- when we ask a question, would you support a bailout to maintain six-state deliberate? 90% said no, they do not want to do that. after the pushback pfc around the auto industry and the banking industry and the insurance industry, there's not very much of an appetite, and in a different way, think about what is happening with those bailouts. general motors lost about four different divisions coming out of there, so they had to make substantial changes to come out much smaller, much leaner in order to close the gap going for. bailing out or hoping for a bailout or hoping somebody will step in is not a good strategy. as an industry, we need to step
up and fix this problem ourselves. bailout, youere a would need to legislation later to restructure, right? alts are a that pot.ailout -- if you think about how poorly -- and most people in this room did not work in the postal service pre-1970, it was very undependable, and if you think about it, the american taxpayer has a lot of options they did not have back then, and the tost thing we could do is hurt from a pricing perspective people who use the mail for their products, heard from a service perfective, erratic service. we have to address some service issues like saturday delivery issues, but if you are hit and miss on a service perspective and you chase people out of the
male, it will only end up hurting this entire industry. an industry, read that five- plan, give us feedback, but we need to push ahead as quickly as possible and get this legislation down at the same time. >> last time you pushed successfully for postal for form, who ended up with a pre- funding mandate that is part of what you're looking to change now. at the ensure a measure that would be passed this year that congress would be favorable to what you want to do? but that me say something about the pre funding. responsible, for our health care. there is no way in the world. it is irresponsible for people to be standing there saying we should not have to pre fund. nobody else does it. that is like when you were a kid nobody else does their homework so i should not have to pick if we expect employees to get
benefits, which are responsible to pay for that. what we have to do is figure out the best way to do it. our own health care plan, this justin came up the other day at the testimony and he said we could support a health care plan that was managed or was operated and i am fine with that as long as it reaches a better plan with lower-cost, for retirees, and the elimination of the pre fu going forward. that is a critical issue. that said, when the refunding was passed 2006, it was a different postal service. let's do the math trick if you go back to 2003 when pre funding for started to be discussed, and a lot of other situations that ended up in that bil we 2003 51 billion pieces of first-class mail. there are very few people in
this room who can see clearly into the future to see exactly what is going happen. but if they would have no 10 years ago what they know today, it might of been different. today we will deliver 21 billion. if you take that 30 billion peace difference at a 46-cent n4 bill in revenue that has evaporated over that time frame. i will say to you in 2006, the congress passed a law thinking they were doing the right thing. the time frame, the burden, the 10-a burden, that was tough, but even at that time, if you think about the fact that if we had not lost a substantial volume we lost with electronic diversion and the recession, we would have been a lot closer to being able to make those payments. our employees have done a tremendous job making up the difference from the bottom we have lost. the key thing is this -- on the legislation, we have been very involved. the team has done an excellent
and all the individuals, on the leadership team, have done an excellent job shepherding this five-year plan. if we can give the five-year plan, any scenarios. where looking at things now and trying to look ahead, and that is why we propose the defined contribution retirement systems because we know that will help reduce costs and provide much more clear the going on. he key thing is no one one -- is trying to push what we have in the five-year plan, and we will have a successful postal service for the long term. > several questions onricin letters. what is the latest on the tests of the substance? what do we know that might be new on that? >> i will tell you what i know pretty much that i am allowed to
say. the ricin was mailed by somebody in mississippi known from what we understand, the way it came to this system, our best information right now is it is in a format that is kind of roughly broken up. it is not something that either came out of the envelope or something that came out in any other way. we -- as soon as we found out about it, and i was irritated because we did n out until after long after it started rolling -- reached out to the medical people, the and theemployees, person has been apprehended. when did not know if anything else is in the system in terms of any other letters. and we have to make sure that we will go back on any recommendations we get from the cdc or anybody else in that area as far as the next steps we
might have to take, we will take those. >> how was it detected? was it sums machine that automatically detected the dangerous options put was a visual? >> it was detected over in the mailroom of the senate, and what happened is they do the opening of sight, and sobo said, what is this? i am sure i did not see what was on the notes or anything. a lot of time this people write this stuff cain. >> have any postal workers been exposed or workers in congress -- concern for the safety of them? >> there are two things you have to be careful of. one is installation if it is finely ground, and we do not think from every indication there's any concern there. or ingestion, and nobody has eaten any of it. what you have to do is just make
sure he can account for everybody, and that is what we have done. we have gone back to the plants where we think the male may have hme from, and the opening s doy to get to the doctor they could. say i am aoner regular person. does the postal service screen my mail for rice and? >> no. going back the legislation, a questioner talks about the losses over the past several fiscal years that are affordable to the pre funding requirement and says what have you not been more vocal in making the magnitude of the loss attributable to that part of public knowledge, d are you focusing more on congress changing that? none is the loss of
!.lume, period, this industry is facing the same issues as the many people sitting up at the dais in the newspaper industry. you have technology changed a substitution, competition. people pay bills online. when you lose 30 billion pieces of mail, that is what is continuing to affect this organization. it will continue. as you have options to go electronically with advertising mail or electronically rst-classill present and ements which is a very scary thought for us, that is why we have to keep the price right and the service level where they are coming at is a major threat. the refunding issues are soluble 100% by managing our own health care, and it is not managed by op the postal seic compete is lr person in this room. there are people in this room who are enjoying very good
health plans because your companies or the groups that you belong to have competed in. yet the benefits, and you are able to adjust things going into the future. the key for the health care, we do not want to warn away from our responsibilities. we want to pay exactly what we should pay. if theseice r pdedicare, t in the united states, and it is paid for by our employees and by your postage rates. it is irresponsible for me to say we should not make people go on medicare. every other company does. that is what we should do. we should have a system set up that if a person is on medicare they're not carrying a fully- loaded federal health care system which would be today. there is no wraparound plants in the federal system. that is what we need to chase this, ok? that is what the federal system should be changed, but just the postal service, so you can actually pay for what you should be paying for. our retirees will save a ton of
money with the plan because instead of having to pay for a portion of a $12,000 plan, it will pay for a portion of a $5,000 or $6,000 plan. 00ees, rirad over e cour up to a lot of m that act -- that i is fixabl when is not fixable is that at the pain bills online is free. we will lose another $5 billion worth of single-piece mail, and cannot stop that. havef -- that is what we said instead of letting us out of this responsibility, let us take the responsibility and do it in a responsible way, own plan to downsize the structure, is on packages, set up health care retirement plans for people in the future that are more affordable, and focus on those types of things to build a strong postal service. >> questioner says at some postal reform legislation, i would add, or if you get reform, do you plan oning